Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MERSEY TUNNEL (LIVERPOOL/WALLASEY) BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BLACKPOOL AND STOURBRIDGE) BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (WEST KENT MAIN SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Education, Lanarkshire (Block Grant)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the block grant for education, with a view to giving an increase in grant to Lanarkshire because of its new town commitments; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Brace Millan): I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer which my right hon. Friend gave him on 16th May.—[Vol. 764, c. 279–280.]

Mr. Hamilton: Would my hon. Friend not agree that Lanarkshire has a heavy responsibility for the new town of East Kilbride, where most of the money has to be spent, because of the young popula-

tion? Is he aware that there are other parts of Lanarkshire, in my constituency —Baillieston, Bothwell, Carmyle, Garrowhill and Bellshill—all requiring schools too? Should not serious thought be given to reviewing the situation?

Mr. Millan: If my hon. Friend is referring to rate support grant, he will know that this is being reviewed by a working party of officials, including representatives of local authorities, of which Lanarkshire is one. If he is talking about the school building programme, the special needs of East Kilbride, as I have made clear to the authority, are already taken into account.

Alcohol and Crime

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider the appointment of a committee to inquire into the relationship of the consumption of alcohol as a contributory cause of the increase in violent crime.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): Alcohol is a contributory factor in the commission of crimes, including crimes of violence. But my right hon. Friend does not think that it would be useful to set up a committee for the purpose of trying to establish more closely the nature and extent of this link.

Mr. Hannan: In view of the mounting evidence from the courts, the recent remarks of Lord Stott, the evidence that one sees in hospitals and the increase in teenage drinking, is there not sufficient reason to justify my request?

Mr. Buchan: I do not think that there is sufficient reason here to justify this particular request for a committee. There is certainly a case for research on this as one of the many complex factors in this situation.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the Minister aware, following his Answer, that a Committee would seem to be something of an irrelevance? Does he appreciate that what the public in Scotland require is action to deal with this problem?

Mr. Buchan: It depends on what the hon. Gentleman means by "action". Thought is being given to this. There are changes of attitudes towards this


question in some of our industrial cities, and we have debated this at some length in Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Hannan: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Legal Aid

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the cost to public funds of criminal legal aid for each of the past three years at any convenient date.

Mr. Buchan: Criminal legal aid, which was introduced on a statutory basis in October 1964, cost £42,000 in the financial year 1964–65, £242,000 in 1965–66 and £396,000 in 1966–67.

Mr. Hannan: In the light of these figures, will my hon. Friend set up an inquiry to find out whether these increasing sums are always justified, and whether the steps taken to recover such moneys from applicants are sufficiently vigorous to comply with the Act?

Mr. Buchan: I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend is examining, in consultation with the Law Society of Scotland, possible ways of containing the growth of expenditure.

Mrs. Ewing: As the criminal legal aid scheme, which replaced the voluntary scheme under which the legal profession gave its services voluntarily under an Act of 1424, provides a smaller umbrella than the voluntary scheme, would the Minister agree that the need is to increase the coverage of the legal aid scheme to restore it to its previous extent? May I also suggest—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.

Mrs. Ewing: Would the Minister agree that it would be worth while looking at the possibility of imposing costs by scale according to the income of the applicant, as is done in the civil scheme?

Mr. Buchan: I said that we were examining the whole system. I do not share the hon. Lady's opinion of the success of the voluntary scheme. There is a better case for the statutory scheme now operating. We must avoid abuses.

Mr. Wylie: Will the Minister endorse the views of his learned friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland that this scheme, and I quote:
… does play a useful and socially necessary rôle in our system—

Mr. Speaker: No quotations in supplementary questions.

Mr. Wylie: Will he assure us that there is no question of reducing the scope of the legal aid scheme, which has performed such a useful social rôle?

Mr. Buchan: I have emphasised that we must maintain this socially useful rôle of the scheme in order to protect the rights of the accused and especially the innocent. Clearly, however, there is room for thought and investigation into the cost, which is mounting up.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give consideration to introducing legislation to prohibit the granting of legal aid to individuals appearing in court on charges of assault involving offensive weapons on the person who have had previous conviction for similar offences; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchan: The present statutory scheme enables persons of inadequate means to exercise their right to have what can be said in their favour brought before the court. Any proposal for modifying the scheme which might have the effect of denying legal representation to persons accused of serious offences is open to objection on grounds of principle. My right hon. Friend has no plans for legislation on these lines. However, he is concerned at the rising cost of criminal legal aid and he is at present considering, in consultation with the Law Society of Scotland, possible ways of containing the growth of expenditure on the scheme.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Airdrie sheriff's court recently three persons charged with assault on individuals involving the use of dangerous weapons, some of whom had previous convictions, were defended by three advocates and three solicitors at the expense of the Legal Aid Fund? Does he not think that this is an abuse of the system? Is it not time that he looked at this?

Mr. Buchan: It is precisely because I am concerned about certain aspects of the situation that I have said that we are investigating it.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: While appreciating the need for proper legal representation for all, would the hon. Gentleman ensure that the funds available to local authorities concerned in the battle against crime will grow at least as fast as the amount available for the Legal Aid Fund?

Mr. Buchan: As the hon. Member will know from the figures I gave a week or two ago, as compared with the previous Administration we are considerably increasing expenditure.

Mr. Willis: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is growing concern over what appears to be the increasingly extravagant use of counsel, both in criminal and civil proceedings? Ought he not to look at this very seriously?

Mr. Buchan: The question of day-today administration of the scheme rests with the Law Society and, as I have said, we are investigating this and other matters with it.

Crime (Glasgow)

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the outbreak of violence in Glasgow over Easter weekend, what action he intends taking to strengthen the forces of law and order.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the proposals he has framed to meet the crime wave in Glasgow in view of its continuing increase.

Mr. Buchan: This is a problem which is under continuous review. My right hon. Friend and I have already described on various occasions the steps the Government have been taking to encourage and support those dealing with it. Furthermore the subject was debated in the Scottish Grand Committee on 9th May.

Mr. Galbraith: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is good enough to keep on saying that this matter is under continual review when everyone, the Church, the magistrates and ordinary people are

asking for stronger measures? It cannot be right to refuse the police greater powers of search. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not the Tiber but the Clyde in Glasgow which is foaming with blood? Will he do something about it?

Mr. Buchan: There are two Questions on the Order Paper about this. As to taking action, one of the means open to me is to encourage the police in every possible way by putting the right kind of facilities at their disposal—by spending money. If one looks at 1962–63, under the previous Administration we were spending only £2 5s. 6d. per head of the population. This year we are spending £4 6s. l0d. per head of the population —nearly double that spent by the previous Administration.

Mr. Rankin: While we are debating this problem in the House and in its Committee Rooms, is my hon. Friend aware that every weekend in Glasgow and district there are fights between gangs with hatchets, razors, hammers and other lethal weapons? If he is in favour of disarmament among nations, why does he not start by disarming these gangs?

Mr. Buchan: As I thought I had made clear, responsibility for law and order in Glasgow rests with the police and the magistrates—

Mr. Rankin: And this House surely?

Mr. Buchan: This House can advise and bring forward ideas and help in that way. This kind of sensationalised picture detracts from the real task, which is to make clear to every thug in Glasgow that very real and effective powers of immediate arrest exist. It is only aiding and abetting the thug to suggest that they do not.

Mr. Noble: Why, if the hon. Gentleman's aim is to encourage the police, does he continue to prevaricate on the one thing that the police and magistrates have all asked for?

Mr. Buchan: This will be dealt with in a later Question, as the right hon. Gentleman should know.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has the Minister given any thought to my proposal that the 500 policemen needed in Glasgow could be recruited from B.A.O.R.? Is it not better for them to be fighting the


real enemy here than some mythical enemy in Germany?

Mr. Buchan: We are interested in all sources of recruitment.

Mr. Galbraith: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Rents

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in the light of the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on rents of local authority houses, what steps he intends taking to encourage local authorities to raise rents to a reasonable level and so reduce the burden on the rates.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. Dickson Mabon): My right hon. Friend has always encouraged local authorities to fix rents at a reasonable level. The principles for determining rents proposed in the Board's report will be discussed with the local authority associations.

Mr. Galbraith: How much longer will the hon. Gentleman continue with this double-talk? Is he in favour of higher rents or not? Why cannot he come out fearlessly, as the Church has done, in favour of rents which charge people what they can afford? Is he aware that the present system of indiscriminate subsidy is grossly unfair to the community, and prevents wealthier people from providing houses for themselves? Will he do something about it and not just talk?

Dr. Mabon: Assuming that the hon. Gentleman is not being hypocritical and reviewing his own record, we can only conclude that his Government colleagues at the time prevented him from doing what he is now preaching to us. I can only say that the report has been received quite recently. There are five important principles in it which have to be discussed by the local authority associations. We must give these associations respect —the hon. Gentleman used to have respect for them—and we must allow these discussions to continue.

Dr. Miller: Is my hon. Friend aware that while there is no objection to increasing rents up to a reasonable level, the

object is not to decrease the burden on the rates but rather that the money should be used for other social services which are absolutely necessary in the cities?

Dr. Mabon: I agree. It would repay every hon. Member to re-read the N.B.P.I. report, particularly the five principles I have mentioned.

Mr. G. Campbell: Will the Secretary of State fully compensate by grant the ratepayers of any local authority who will have to pay increased rates because rent schemes have had to be altered?

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman ought to have accepted my admonition which I gave in general terms and now give to him personally. There are five important principles to be studied by the local authorities, individuals and by hon. Members. The answer is contained within a good study of these principles.

Edinburgh (Tourist Facilities)

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held with Edinburgh Corporation about tourist facilities in the city.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: None, Sir, but the Scottish Tourist Board has been discussing these matters with the Corporation.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does the Minister realise that because it is the capital and because of its fame Edinburgh is the greatest tourist attraction in Scotland? Will he give an assurance that, as regards grants and loans, builders, hotel owners and other people in the city are to be treated exactly the same as those in any other part of Scotland?

Dr. Mabon: I am certain that Edinburgh—the Lord Provost in particular— will welcome the announcement in the White Paper of the hotel incentives scheme which will apply to Edinburgh. He may remember that in the tourism debate I referred to the Edinburgh Accommodation Study which, to some extent, bears out what the hon. Gentleman said about his own city.

Mr. Stodart: In view of the attractions of Edinburgh and the acute shortage of hotel accommodation there, will the hon. Gentleman at least repeat that in the new scheme Edinburgh will receive the same


grants for hotel building as those given in development areas?

Dr. Mabon: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to do harm to his city by giving the impression that there is not ample accommodation, let us say for the Games, in Edinburgh. There is. According to the study which I have mentioned, Edinburgh accommodated something like 2 million bed nights in the year under review. We accept that in 1981 there will be 3 mi lion bed nights so required. [Laughter] This is the way it is measured. A good study of the White Paper would repay hon. Gentlemen.

Edinburgh (Boundaries)

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Edinburgh Corporation concerning extension of the city's boundaries; and what reply he has sent.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: None, Sir.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Will the Minister announce as a matter of policy that the Government are not in favour of extension of boundaries in Edinburgh and that if there is a great increase in population the answer lies in a new town, not in extending boundaries? Will the Scottish Office pay particular attention to open spaces in Edinburgh and draw attention particularly to Alnwickhill?

Dr. Mabon: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the letter of intention of 9th May which the Secretary of State issued to the corporation following the public inquiry into the quinquennial review of the corporation's development plan. He will see that the Secretary of State commends the view that the regional approach towards housing accommodation in the city and in the surrounding counties is the right way to go about it.

Offensive Weapons

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will reach a decision on the proposal to introduce legislation to provide the police with powers to search individuals for offensive weapons.

Mr. MacArthnr: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has com-

pleted his consideration of the proposal that the police should have power of search where the possession of an offensive weapon is suspected; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchan: The present view of my right hon. Friend is that time should be allowed for the effects to be shown of the recent clarification of the existing law of arrest in relation to offensive weapons.

Mr. Monro: Will the Minister take more definite action? Will he, for instance, consider bringing in early legislation of an experimental nature to see whether it will help in Glasgow?

Mr. Buchan: I thought I had made my answer fairly clear. In terms of the present request, no.

Mr. MacArthnr: The hon. Gentleman has been considering this question for some eight months. Will he accept that the police and the magistrates are in the front line of the fight against crime and are more aware of the problems and the needs than the hon. Gentleman can possibly be in his ivory tower? Will he take action at last to provide the police with the powers which they and the nation require?

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Member has not been reading the Press as diligently as perhaps he should. I have been very much involved in the situation in Glasgow over the past few months. I have seen the kind of problems facing the police. But with the new clarification they have received, I am sure that their confidence of their right to arrest people in situations for which search has been demanded introduces a new and helpful factor.

Mr. Dewar: Does my hon. Friend accept that many people in this House deplore the kind of sensationalised and extravagant campaign which has been running for re-vamped police powers, which many local authorities feel will be unhelpful and will complicate life for the police and bring Glasgow into unnecessary disrepute in the eyes of the world?

Mr. Buchan: This is absolutely true. I think it would have been more helpful in the situation and more helpful now if more constant reference was made to the


real powers which do exist instead of aiding and abetting the thug by suggesting that no real powers exist.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is the long delay more than the decision which has had such a serious effect on the morale of those fighting the battle against crime? Why cannot he come to a speedy decision?

Mr. Buchan: I thought I had made my answer clear. I am glad to know that the hon. Gentleman thinks it was the delay rather than the decision which was significant. I am pleased to know that he realises that at best the suggested powers were only marginal and possibly not helpful.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that some hon. Gentlemen opposite would not know a council housing scheme in Glasgow if they saw it; that it would be quite helpful to those of us who have some intimate knowledge of the problem if they would desist this kind of campaign; and that many of us are satisfied that the police have adequate powers at the moment?

Mr. Buchan: I think the answer is, yes, to all three questions.

Mr. Monro: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Dewar: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider introducing legislation to increase the maximum penalty for carrying an offensive weapon on summary conviction under the Prevention of Crime Act, 1953, from three months in prison to six months.

Mr. Buchan: I am not aware that the normal limit of three months in the powers of imprisonment of the sheriff summary court creates difficulties in disposing of offenders convicted of this offence.

Mr. Dewar: Will my hon. Friend accept that there is a body of reasonable opinion alarmed by the rise in the crime rate and the prevalence of this kind of offence who feel that a little more flexibility in sentencing policy would be an advantage and of help to the Bench in dealing with this kind of incident?

Mr. Buchan: Yes. But the sheriff's summary court can already impose borstal and detention sentences, so there is flexibility in length of time in that connection, and two years not three months, is the maximum sentence on indictment. So there is an element of flexibility on both counts which is adequate to deal with the problem.

Mr. Wylie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the remedy is largely in the hands of the Lord Advocate? If he chose to take more cases on indictment, there would be no problem of three months, as he has pointed out.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct to say that this is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, and no doubt he will be noting the views expressed here this afternoon.

Aluminium Smelter

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on the siting of an aluminium smelter in Scotland.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now announce his decision on the siting of an aluminium smelter in Scotland.

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to announce the siting of an aluminium smelter in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I cannot yet add to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, during the debate on the Adjournment on 16th May.

Mr. Monro: Since the Prime Minister's optimistic statement last September, there seems to have been nothing but disappointment and uncertainty for Inver-gordon. Can the Secretary of State say how the negotiations are going with E.F.T.A. and when he hopes to be able to make a definite statement?

Mr. Ross: I do not think there is disappointment. There may well have been uncertainty. What the hon. Gentleman and others fail to appreciate is the


magnitude of the projects, the complexity of the negotiations, and the number of people involved. I can only reiterate that a statement will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not beyond the wit of man to erect an aluminium smelter at Invergordon or anywhere else quite quickly, provided the decision and the will do so is there? Does the statement by the Prime Minister on 9th May that he has been in day-to-day touch with the problem perhaps give some indication why this terrible delay has taken place?

Mr. Ross: It is fairly obvious that the hon. Gentleman has not even gone into the problems. He has not considered the recent negotiations and the concern of people internationally concerning this matter, concern which we hope to get over.

Mr. Adam Hunter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in Scotland still feel that the projected Aloan smelter should go to Invergordon in the hope that the mining industry might derive some benefit?

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend should know that the Minister of State, Board of Trade, in the debate which I mentioned, said that Alcan had agreed to the Government's request to consider the suitability of alternative sites in North-East England. The reason for that is so that they would be adjacent to the coal they were to use.

Mr. Noble: Though we all appreciate the difficult international negotiations that are going on, we also realise the particular uncertainty that is felt in the Dingwell area. Could not the Government announce that one smelter at least will go to that area?

Mr. Ross: It is much tidier to wait —I hope not that much longer—and get the announcement about the whole position. I, too, suffer from the measure of uncertainty, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no need to express disappointment at this stage.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if this project had been formulated in the years between

1951 and 1964 it might have been in production now? Can my right hon. Friend say what the time lag will be between the completion of the negotiations with our EFTA partners and the announcement of a decision in this House?

Mr. Ross: I hope very little indeed. My hon. Friend should appreciate that the negotiations are very complex. It is not just a matter of the international aspects, but aspects relating to the provision of finance, services, power and all the rest. A considerable effort will be made to cut to the absolute minimum any delays which will be involved.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that grave concern is felt at Invergordon at the delay in making an announcement? Is he further aware that many people who have been unemployed for the past year have remained at Invergordon in the hope that the smelter would be coming along? For their sake, will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to expedite a decision, if possible before the Whitsun Recess?

Mr. Ross: I can understand and appreciate the feelings in Invergordon. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, this Government have created the hope. It is this Government's direct initiative which has created the opportunity. The hon. Gentleman can smile. I hope that before we are finished the people who have reason to be happy and smile will be the people of Invergordon.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when building of the aluminium smelter will begin; when it will be completed; and how many it will employ when fully operational.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend must await the announcement of the Government's decisions on new smelting capacity, on which these matters naturally depend.

Mr. Hamilton: Yes, that is just what I meant.

Rents

Mr. Dewar: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how he proposes to apply the ceiling on increases in local authority housing rents in Scotland; and whether he will fix a limit below 7s. 6d.,


in view of the fact that such an increase would represent a much higher proportional rise in Scotland than in England.

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what special action he proposes to take on local authority rents; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government announced on 25th April that we will not normally accept increases in average standard rents exceeding 7s. 6d. a week in any one year, which was the upper limit recommended by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. This does not mean, of course, that rent increases of this order will be generally acceptable, and my right hon. Friend told local authorities that they will be expected to restrict increases to what is needed to meet increased costs or to bring down unduly high rate fund contributions.

Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend will, of course, bear in mind that there is a different rent structure in Scotland from that in England and a different wages structure in many industries. Would he, therefore, bear in mind that a 7s. 6d. increase would be a very high proportional rise in many parts of Scotland, and possibly an unjust one? Would he remember that it is, indeed, a maximum of 7s. 6d.?

Dr. Mabon: Yes, Sir, I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. However, although the proportional increase could be very substantial, it is the actual increase which counts for the tenant, and this is one of the many factors which we must weigh together. That is why the discussions which we are to have with the local authority associations are so important.

Mr. Hunter: Would my hon. Friend not agree that there are many council tenants in Scotland living in areas of high unemployment and low wage rates who would find it difficult to pay weekly rent increases of 7s. 6d.?

Dr. Mabon: I accept that, and we must bear in mind all the factors surrounding each case.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: But would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is very

striking that four out of five of the burghs with the lowest contribution from rents to historic cost examined by the Prices and Incomes Board are in Scotland? Does this not suggest that the need is for a speedier move towards recovery of historic costs and not a slower move?

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed. Four of the local authorities referred are in Scotland—[Interruption.]—with respect, he said that there were four out of five of those referred. In fact, the Minister of Housing referred considerably—[Interruption.] Well, I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, or he did not say it properly. In fact, the increases proposed by four local authorities, including one in his own constituency, are the subject of discussions, and we will take the appropriate action on these.

Brown Trout Fishing

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the proposals for organising brown trout fishing in the report of the Hunter Committee.

Mr. Buchan: I should prefer not to comment on individual recommendations until my right hon. Friend has completed his consideration of the Report as a whole.

Mr. Campbell: Although some of the decisions of the Hunter Committee on salmon will require time for the careful consideration necessary, why cannot the Government start action on the trout recommendations, as urged from this side in the debate last summer, since this would be of great help to the Scottish tourist industry?

Mr. Buchan: I am interested to know that hon. Members opposite differentiate between salmon and trout, but the Report should be seen as a whole—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: They are different fish.

Mr. Buchan: I recognise that they are different fish and that there are different attitudes to these different fish from certain people. Our view is that the Report should be considered as a whole, with all its implications.

Halliday Report

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Halliday Report.

Mr. Ross: For the present I have nothing to add to the reply I gave in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) on 10th April.—[Vol. 762, c. 1343–4.]

Mr. Campbell: Why cannot the Government yet proceed, on the basis of this useful Report, with changing and modernising the feu system and conveyancing?

Mr. Ross: The way the hon. Gentleman puts it one would think that this was a modest and slight change, when in fact it would change the whole land tenure structure of Scotland and is completely revolutionary. We have discussed this with all the authorities in Scotland, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have received varied reactions. This must be the subject of further discussion and consideration and, as early as possible—I hope before the end of this Session—I shall make a further statement.

Mrs. Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general public in Scotland resent the heavy cost of conveyancing fees, which are partly due to the intensely complicated method? Does he agree that the public realise that it is full of mumbo-jumbo and that this brings the law into disrepute? Would he press for legislation to simplify the law on conveyancing?

Mr. Ross: Yes, this is one aspect, and only one, of the Halliday Report. I assure the hon. Lady that, as far as I know, Scots object to all kinds of legal fees. I am glad to be able to enrol her into the anti-lawyer lobby, although I suspected earlier that that would not be worth while. We are considering conveyancing to see whether there are certain aspects which might be separated from the main issue, and whether we could promote a separate Bill for those.

Mr. Dewar: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, although the question of feu duties is a complicated one, many proposals in the Report are much more simple and could be intro-

duced much more quickly and would simplify the conveyancing procedures and spare my colleagues in the legal profession the embarrassment of charging high conveyancing fees?

Mr. Ross: I am glad to have the support of my hon. Friend. He will note what I have said—that I am still considering the possibility of separate legislation on this aspect.

Mr. Wylie: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to this useful Report will not be coloured by his well-known antipathy towards the legal profession.

Mr. Ross: I have been very kindly to the legal profession. Everyone here has. All the supplementary questions so far have come from the legal profession. It is time that we heard the layman.

Mr. James Davidson: Speaking as a layman, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a debate not only on the Halliday Report but on the whole feudal system is long overdue, that a majority of legal opinion would maintain that the whole system of feu duties and the feudal system could be easily dealt with by separate legislation, and that those parts of the profession who do not agree with this are those who consider simplification to be a vice?

Mr. Ross: Everyone wants reform, but they cannot seem to agree on its nature and how the financial problems which arise will be dealt with. Everyone wants feu duties abolished, but the consequence is the question of who would undertake the financial burden which is inevitably involved.

Royal Commission on Local Government

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the report of the Royal Commission on Local Government.

Mr. Ross: I hope to have the Report by the end of this year.

Mr. Taylor: Would it be the right hon. Gentleman's intention on receiving this Report, and in the light of the statesmanlike and forward-looking speech made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition at Perth, to consider how these recommendations can be allied


to the devolution of real responsibility to a Scottish elected assembly?

Mr. Ross: I do not make decisions on recommendations until I have seen the recommendations. When I have, I shall discuss, in Scotland, with Scottish people and Scottish local authorities and the other interests affected just where we can move from there.

Passenger Transport Authorities

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to establish passenger transport authorities in Scotland.

Mr. Ross: I intend to consult the local authorities and other interests concerned before deciding whether to establish any passenger transport authorities in Scotland.

Mr. Taylor: Precisely what was the reason for the new measures which the right hon. Gentleman is bringing in next week to enable local authorities to give grants to railway lines? Will he guarantee that he will not hold a pistol to the heads of local authorities and force the railway deficit on the rates?

Mr. Ross: I have never been a Secretary of State who held pistols to the heads of local authorities, despite invitations to do so from hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member knows the position. It has been considered fully in the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill and will no doubt be considered further. We have just received the report of the Greater Glasgow Transportation Study and we are still awaiting the East Central Scotland Study. Until we get it, we would be unwise to make up our minds about P.T.A.s in Scotland.

Tain Royal Academy

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that the present rate of progress with the building of the new Tain Royal Academy is sufficient to enable the Academy to be opened on the target date in 1969; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Millan: I understand that Ross and Cromarty Education Authority is satisfied with the rate of progress and

sees no reason to change its forecast of the completion date.

Mr. Mackenzie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer will give much satisfaction to my constituents in Tain? Will he accept the appreciation of my constituents and myself for the efforts of the local authority and the contractors concerned?

Mr. Millan: indicated assent.

Forestry Commission (Land)

Mrs. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Forestry Commission has not acquired any land under compulsory powers; and if he will make a statement on the difficulties the Commission has in obtaining land from landowners unwilling to sell it, including land at present put to no use.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In general, the Forestry Commission has had no special difficulty in acquiring enough suitable land in Scotland by agreement; and accordingly, the need to use compulsory powers has not so far arisen.

Mrs. Ewing: Is the Minister aware that the potential of the Forestry Commission in Scotland to expand is immense and that, while many landowners are selling their land, many others are driving a hard bargain by selling job lots of unsuitable land with suitable land which the Forestry Commission must accept on a take-it-or-leave-it basis? Is he aware that the present state of affairs will remain unsatisfactory as long as great tracts of land in Scotland remain in the hands of a few people who are not putting it to any use? Is he also aware that no other country in the world allows this situation to prevail?

Dr. Mabon: I cannot agree with the hon. Lady's final words and I am not certain that I fully understand the point she is making. If she will give me specific instances I will look into them. About 200,000 plantable acres are already at the disposal of the Forestry Commission. In the last year for which we have figures we purchased 50,000 plantable acres. We are, therefore, doing very well and the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last October was welcome to Scotsmen everywhere in that we are going to raise the position in Scotland to an all-time record.

Mr. Willis: Have the difficulties that exist in connection with obtaining land in the North-East been overcome?

Dr. Mabon: Not completely. I readily accept that our reserves in the North-East are low. That is the one area where that situation prevails. This is a difficult problem, but we are still pursuing the matter.

The Borders (Johnston Marshall Plan)

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made to the cost to the Exchequer of implementing the Johnston Marshall Plan for the Borders.

Mr. Ross: I cannot yet estimate how much of the necessary investment will be in the public sector.

Earl of Dalkeith: Will the right hon. Gentlem;m assure the House that before he commits the taxpayer to vast sums of expenditure he will first of all consider the future of the Borders in terms of a balanced population with a balance in age groups rather than in terms of large numbers simply for the sake of large numbers?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to think that the Government are so blind as to race into this without thinking of this very obvious problem. We appreciate the difficulty. A Conservative Government produced a demographic report about the Borders and that showed clearly how unbalanced things are, particularly in connection with age groups. Any move of population into the area will be designed to correct that rather than to aggravate it.

Mr. David Steel: Of particular interest to my constituents is whether the Government are making any firm commitments in connection with the various projects in the Plan. Is he aware that we are especially interested to know if a starting date for the new hospital has been agreed and, more immediately, if a firm starting date has been fixed for a new bridge over the Tweed at Gala-foot?

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman will table specific Questions on those matters I will answer them.

Arable Land (Housing Developments)

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the loss of arable land for farming due to housing developments in Scotland over the next 10 years.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) on 25th January, 1967.— [Vol. 739, c. 294.]

Earl of Dalkeith: Would the Minister agree that as the world becomes increasingly short of food arable land will become increasingly important to this country? Will he therefore consider a scheme of incentives for local authorities to persuade them to do more of their building on land which is of less good agricultural value?

Dr. Mabon: It is the policy of the Department and has been our policy for some time that where all things are equal we choose to build on poorer rather than better land. However, as the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) was informed, about 5,000 acres of agricultural land of all qualities is being taken out of agricultural production for development. That is the present rate. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any assurance beyond saying that we will keep looking at the trends to ensure that the policies being followed are correct.

Mr. Small: Taking into account the figures projected over the next 10 years and considering this problem in terms of land use—a non-transferable asset for children yet unborn; this is non-inheritable land, as it were—would my hon. Friend agree that we must be particularly careful in this matter?

Dr. Mabon: I will examine my hon. Friend's remarks closely.

Mr. Stodart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people in the City of Edinburgh deplore the decision of his right hon. Friend to take out of production about 120 acres of very fine arable land at a famous farm called "East Craigs"?

Dr. Mabon: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He must realise


that many painful decisions must be taken by Secretaries of State from time to time to cope with the problem of housing our people. He will, of course, accept that this, too, is a primary matter of social concern.

British Standard Time

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received to date in favour of the introduction of British Standard Time; and how many against.

Mr. Ross: Since the Government's decision was announced on 22nd June, 1967, I have received no representations in favour and about 114 representations against. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government have reconsidered this matter in view of the many representations received and have tabled an Amendment to the Bill to provide for an experimental period of three years.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's Answer, is it not clear that everyone in Scotland is totally against the introduction of British Standard Time, so why not drop the idea altogether?

Mr. Ross: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is being somewhat sweeping when he refers to everyone in Scotland being totally opposed to the introduction of B.S.T. He usually tells me to consult everyone in Scotland. He may be interested to know that the Scottish Office of the Confederation of British Industries the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) were among those I consulted at the start and that they were in favour of the introduction of B.S.T.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why not leave Scotland alone until the three-year experiment has been conducted in England?

Mr. Ross: That would not be a practicable idea.

Mr. Hughes: Why not?

Mr. Ross: Many people in Scotland are in favour of this change.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this proposal will involve serious hardship to agriculture in Scotland and will probably intro-

duce some new perils for schoolchildren in rural districts? Is he aware that this places a totally intolerable new burden on Scottish life for a questionable commercial advantage?

Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Gentleman that once again he exaggerates the difficulties in this matter. We naturally took into consideration most seriously the effects that this change would have on agriculture. We always seriously consider these matters. We also considered its effect on schoolchildren. It will mean that schoolchildren will travel to school— that is, if present school hours remain the same—in darkness in parts of the country, but they will get the advantage at the other end of the day.

Mr. Brewis: Is there any real reason why Scotland should not have different time from England?

Mr. Ross: I think we have enough complications without that.

Hotel Industry (Selective Employment Tax)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the division of Scotland into areas where certain hotels receive refund of the Selective Employment Tax and where others do not; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received from outside bodies about the discrimination of the Selective Employment Tax on the hotels in the eastern part of the country; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Ross: I have received 30 representations, of which 16 were from bodies in the east of Scotland, including East Lothian, Fife, Kincardine and Roxburgh County Councils. In my replies I have said that the selection of areas listed in Schedule 17 of the Finance Bill broadly achieves the object for which the concession was designed and that there would be an opportunity for the matter to be discussed in detail at the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of us will be


unable to discuss this matter in Committee on the Finance Bill? Is it not clear, from the weight of representation that has been made-against this iniquitous and arbitrary distinction between areas of Scotland, that once again the Secretary of State is completely out of touch with the people of Scotland?

Mr. Ross: I have been very interested indeed in the desire of certain towns in Scotland to be designated as rural towns, particularly since hitherto many people have thought themselves to be veritable centres of metropolitan thought in Scotland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter which will be further discussed on the Finance Bill; and that is the time for the subject to be debated.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is far too ready to practise discrimination, that discrimination against hotels in my constituency and in other parts of the country is totally unjust and that these hotels need the same chance as every other hotel in the country to contribute to the growing tourist industry?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman raises two questions; first, that of tourist development and the need for incentives to aid tourism and, secondly, that of regional development and the need for help in particular areas. I remind him that his hon. Friends are constantly asking me to discriminate—for example, in favour of the Highland areas—and I suggest that we have gone a good deal beyond what has been sought in an endeavour to be of help. I sometimes wonder if we should have done it at all.

Mr. Steele: As the proposal is obviously designed to help hotels which are busy only seasonally, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that to set a line of this kind is bound to cause anomalies because of a certain amendment of rigidity caused by that line? Will he bear this in mind and perhaps formulate a system whereby hotels which are busy for only parts of the year and which at present fall on the wrong side of the line can be considered?

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend will appreciate that: no matter where the line is drawn there will be anomalies. No matter how one discriminates, anomalies will occur between those who are within a

scheme and those who are just left out. Whether or not this whole matter is serious enough to merit an amendment of the proposal is a matter for consideration in further stages of the Bill.

Mr. Younger: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is bitterly unfair on hotels competing in the same market as other hotels in these areas which have to face the same problems and markets and put up their prices? Will he reconsider this? Will he tell us who drew this line, he or the Minister of Labour in London?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member knows well that the decision was a Government decision and that is how it is properly to be expressed. As to competing in the same market, that is not always true— [An HON. MEMBER: "Of course it is."] —no, it is not always true. For instance, in Girvan and in Ayr there is very considerable difference.

Mr. G. Campbell: Do not the words used by the Secretary of State, saying that wherever the line is drawn anomalies would be created, confirm again that there is only one thing to be done with this tax and that is to abolish it?

Mr. Ross: If that were done it would have to be replaced by another tax and there would be a bigger outcry than ever.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Storm Damage (Insurance)

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he now has as to the number of housing authorities in Scotland who insure their properties against storm damage.

Mr. Ross: I now have information from 116 authorities. Four counties, two large burghs and 40 small burghs insure against storm damage. The four cities, 14 counties, 18 large burghs and 34 small burghs do not.

Sir J. Gilmour: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the rate payers of those prudent local authorities which have insured will benefit from the prudence which their leaders have shown?

Mr. Ross: I think that follows without saying.

Prescription Charges

Sir 3. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people he now estimates will be eligible for exemption from prescription charges.

Mr. Millan: The number of exempt patients in Scotland is expected to be just under 2½ million.

Sir J. Gilmour: Can the Under-Secre-tary say whether he has concluded satisfactory arrangements with the pharmaceutical trade in Scotland about the method of repayment?

Mr. Millan: That is something which will be debatable on the regulations. Other discussions with the chemists are going on and the scheme will come into operation on 10th June.

Mr. Manuel: In regard to the large number of exclusions, will the actual cost of recovery and working out the exclusions make the scheme worth while?

Mr. Millan: Certainly it will be worth while in finding a saving.

Mr. Noble: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that I heard him aright in suggesting that 50 per cent. of the people in Scotland will be exempt?

Mr. Millan: Yes, that is what I said.

Crimes of Violence

Mr. Wright: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he will not recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the causes of violence in Scotland.

Mr. Buchan: My right hon. Friend does not think that the appointment of a Royal Commission would make a worthwhile contribution to tackling this problem.

Mr. Wright: Will the hon. Gentleman bring to the attention of the Secretary of State the fact that violence in Scotland is now a matter of national concern? The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow has voiced it, and the Observer voiced it last week-end. Will the right hon. Gentleman take advantage of the interest in this subject, apart from the

fact that Glasgow is a crime laboratory of the two universities, and reconsider the decision?

Mr. Buchan: I think the hon. Member has benefited from the discussion we had privately last week. If he is concerned with research, he knows that we are paying a great deal of attention to that and certain helpful moves are going on in this direction. We are using research advice which has come from Glasgow and other areas.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there seems to be too much concentration on punishment after the trouble has come? Is he not aware that there is a great advantage if someone can find what is causing all this and see whether education, the Church or other bodies can help to eradicate the trouble before it starts?

Mr. Buchan: I agree very much with what my right hon. Friend has said. This has been the main burden of the many discussions I have had over several months and of a number of suggestions I have put forward. I was interested to see that the senior magistrate in Glasgow is pursuing the same lines of research into understanding the causes and taking social measures to deal with the problem.

Mr. Wylie: Would the hon. Gentleman agree in view of the terrible complexity of the matter that an inquiry by a Royal Commission, such as is suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright), may be a very appropriate way of investigating the underlying nature of the problem?

Mr. Buchan: I do not think it would be. I am concerned with this as an urgent as well as a long-term problem and Royal Commissions have never been notorious for speed. The number and variety of people involved require a different solution, certainly not that of a Royal Commission.

Glasgow Primary Schools (Entry Date)

Mr. Wright: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in the talks between the Scottish Education Department and Glasgow Corporation over the proposal to institute


a single date of entry into Glasgow primary schools.

Mr. Milan: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on 15th May.—[Vol. 764, c. 1220–1.]

Mr. Wright: Does the Under-Secretary appreciate fully the anguish which this problem has caused a great many parents in Glasgow? Will he consider making the administration of infant and primary schools a great deal more flexible than it is in order to cope with this problem?

Mr. Millan: I do not understand that question. If the hon. Member will look at the Answer I gave last week he will see that the Secretary of State has asked Glasgow Corporation to go back to two entry dates for primary schools.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the political opportunism of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) almost rivals that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor)? Will he recognise that the very genuine concern by parents arises from the teacher shortage and part-time education which he inherited from hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Millan: I agree with both propositions.

Scottish Tourist Board

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met officials of the Scottish Tourist Board.

Mr. Ross: In June, 1967. My hon. Friend the Minister of State met the Board's Director, with one of its members, in February of this year.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the Secretary of State not take some trouble to meet the Tourist Board again to discuss with it the bogus S.E.T. concession, which means that the tourist industry in Scotland will be paying more after the so-called concession than before? Will he reconsider his views about the arbitrary line, which shows total ignorance of the problem facing the industry and that the tax should be abolished altogether?

Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Member that if the tourist industry or

the Tourist Board have anything useful to say to me they will do so, as they have done in the past, but so far they have made no representations.

Scottish Law Commission

Mr. Wylie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further consideration he has given in consultation with the Lord Advocate to the appointment of a second full-time member of the Scottish Law Commission; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchan: The Lord Advocate and my right hon. Friend have decided to appoint a second full-time member of the Scottish Law Commission in place of one of the part-time members whose term of office expires on 16th June; and I am glad to announce that Mr. A. M. Johnston, Q.C., has accepted this appointment. Mr. Johnston will relinquish his present appointment as Sheriff of Dumfries and Galloway.

Mr. Wylie: In thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate on making this change? This change will greatly strengthen the Law Commission and the choice of candidate is admirable.

Mr. Buchan: I am sure my right hon. Friend will be delighted to receive the congratulations of the lawyers.

Schools (Sub-standard Buildings)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schools have seriously sub-standard buildings; and what would be the estimated cost of modernising or replacing them.

Mr. Millan: Detailed information of this kind is not collected centrally. It is for the education authority, within its investment allocation, to select schools to improve or replace.

Mr. Brewis: Will the hon. Gentleman now concentrate more money on substandard primary schools since we are not to raise the school leaving age in the next two years?

Mr. Millan: As the hon. Member knows, the allocations within the school building allocations have precisely that purpose.

South-West Scotland

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to produce a plan for expansion of the South-West of Scotland, similar to that for the Central Borders.

Mr. Ross: The South-West Economic Consultative Group has asked for a study to follow up the outline strategy in the White Paper on the Scottish Economy and I am considering how best this could be arranged.

Mr. Brewis: Is the Secretary of State aware that there has been considerable delay in getting something done for this area and that the population is dwindling away while he is dithering?

Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Member that his Government did nothing about this for 13 years. We are the only people who have started to do something to get people interested in their future. This point will be considered by the Consultative Group at its next meeting. After that we shall have discussions to see how to follow the matter up.

Mr. Galbraith: If the Secretary of State decides to produce such a plan, will he ensure that the publication is a great deal easier to understand than that produced for the South-East and also much cheaper so that people can afford to read it?

Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I had nothing to do with the South-East one, but there will be no such complaint in respect of Scotland.

Mr. Younger: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is a matter of considerable urgency, as many mining jobs are likely to be lost in the near future? Will he press on with this urgently?

Mr. Ross: Yes, I appreciate this. We lost many mining jobs in the last 10 years, but nothing was done about it.

Mr. Galbraith: On a point of order. For the sake of accuracy, may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the publication which I inadvertently described as being for the South-East was in fact for the Central Borders?

Mr. Speaker: That is a point of accuracy, not of order.

Mr. Brewis: On a point of order. I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

TRANSPORT BILL (AVAILABILITY)

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): In accordance with the undertaking which I gave to the House yesterday, I have made detailed inquiries into the point raised by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) about whether the Government made copies of the Transport Bill, as amended, available to some of their back benchers before the Bill was issued by the Public Bill Office on 18th May.
I am satisfied from my inquiries that this allegation is totally without foundation.
The Government, as usual, received a few proof copies of the Bill. The Minister sent one proof copy of the reprinted Bill, by hand, to the hon. Member for Worcester, and another to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) on Thursday, 16th May. These copies were sent to them as chief transport spokesmen for their parties in the House. No copy was given, or shown by the Ministry, to any other Member.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Leader of the House aware that the copy which was sent to me, and presumably to the spokesman for the Liberal Party, was marked "Strictly confidential", and that I was told that it could not be used, that it was not accurate, and that it must not be shown to any other person? That strict confidence was kept.
Therefore, will the Leader of the House tell us what explanation he received from those Labour back benchers who tabled Amendments on Friday, who obviously must have been in possession of a copy of the Bill, because, without being in possession of a copy of the Bill, it would have been impossible for them to make the references concerned?

Mr. Peart: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked me this question.


Amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. James Bennett) and Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) certainly were discussed between my hon. Friend the Minister of State and them. In order to get the Amendments down quickly, with the right page and line references, my hon. Friends asked the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am being frank with the House. —my hon. Friends asked the Minister of State whether he would arrange for the Amendments to be tabled in their names. This was arranged—this is not unusual— through Parliamentary counsel. My hon. Friends were not shown copies of the Bill or told what was in the Bill.

Mr. Peter Walker: That is a most unsatisfactory reply. In the circumstances, the Leader of the House knows full well that there was considerable importance in being able to table Amendments early, as the Business Committee was meeting on Tuesday to discuss the timetable for the Bill. In view of this, Conservative back benchers who asked if they could table Amendments were told that they were unable to see any copy of the Bill to make the appropriate references. Therefore, in practice, this side of the House was unable to table Amendments on Friday, whereas the Government side was able to do so, in consultation with the Minister.

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. The hon. Gentleman made a specific charge yesterday. He said—and I quote from HANSARD—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not use words like that. I have made an impartial inquiry. The hon. Gentleman said yesterday:
… it means that Ministers must have placed in the hands of their back benchers copies of a Bill that was not available to Members on this side of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 299.]
I have looked into this matter. No copies of the Bill were ever given to the hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that charge.

Mr. Peter Walker: On the assurance of the Leader of the House, I will certainly withdraw the charge that copies of the Bill were placed in the hands of back bench Members opposite. In its place, I say that the back benchers were given the facility of the Minister looking up the Bill for them and telling them how to frame their Amendments.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman, who had received a copy of the Bill from my hon. Friend, who, incidentally, had discussed matters with him in the Business Committee only a few hours previously, did not have the courtesy even to tell my right hon. Friend that he was raising this matter on the Floor of the House. I, as an older and more experienced Member, tell the hon. Gentleman that, if he goes on like this, he will bring disrepute not only on himself but on the normal conventions applying to relations between Ministers and those who lead for the Opposition.

Mr. Heath: What the Leader of the House has said is that no copy of the Bill was given to back benchers, but what the Government have done is to table Amendments for back benchers before the Bill was published. This is absolutely unsatisfactory to the rest of the House. The Leader of the House says that it is the customary practice. In my experience, it is certainly not the customary practice for the Government of the day to table Amendments in the names of back bench Members before the Bill has been published.
I ask the Leader of the House to abandon the various other red herrings which he has been drawing across the path and stick to this point, which is entirely unsatisfactory to the House.

Mr. Peart: I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should talk about red herrings. I was asked—indeed, I was pressed—by the hon. Member for Worcester to investigate whether my right hon. Friend had placed a copy of the Bill in the hands of, or made available the contents of the Bill to, our back benchers. That was the charge. My right hon. Friend did not do this. The only two Members who had the Bill were the hon. Members for Worcester and for Bodmin.

Mr. Heath: What the House is complaining about is that Government back benchers were given an advantage by the Government tabling Amendments for them—because this is what must have happened; indeed, the Leader of the House has said so—before anybody else had a copy of the Bill which they could use for this purpose. Will the Leader of


the House please say what justification there is for that practice?

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made a charge. I have answered it. There is now another charge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have answered the first charge. I believe that this is a normal courtesy whereby Members who have put a point of view in Committee seek advice and make representations. This applied to me when I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when I was approached by Conservative back benchers. I have investigated this charge. It is unfounded. I ask hon. Members to be honourable and withdraw it.

Mr. Bessell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I confirm his statement about the copy of the Bill that I received, that I treated it with confidence, and that I very much appreciate the courtesy of the Minister of Transport in sending it to me? Further, is it not a fact that the selection of Amendments for discussion will not be in any way affected by what has happened? As that is the real issue, it would be better to drop this matter.

Mr. Peart: I give the hon. Gentleman that complete assurance—[Interruption.] I have been asked, and I have said that it would be unaffected.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we can move on.

Mr. G. Campbell: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that this practice will never occur again? It is entirely unacceptable that private Members' names should appear on Amendments printed at the same time as the Bill is published. Can the right hon. Gentleman name any occasion when Conservative private Members' names appeared at the same time as a Bill being published when he was at the Ministry of Agriculture?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. It would be a tragedy if the practice of having talks between our opposite numbers and an exchange of confidential information on the Bill in question is spoilt. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not

the point."] It is the point. I see nothing wrong with what my right hon. Friend has done in any way. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Worcester has made this charge without even having the courtesy to inform my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Peter Walker: As the right hon. Gentleman keeps on repeating this, I should point out that I considered that the query was a technical one with the Public Bill Office. Therefore, I gave notice to Mr. Speaker, who, I thought, was the right person to give notice of this. Through the Minister's saying that my copy of the Bill had to be treated in strict confidence, I was unable to give any references in the Bill to my back benchers, while he was doing so to his.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member for Worcester made this charge:
… it means that Ministers must have placed in the hands of their back benchers copies of a Bill that was not available to Members on this side of the House.
The hon. Gentleman had a copy of the Bill. He knows that this was not so.

Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend has already told the Leader of the House that if—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Heath.

Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend has already said—

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. Must we go on suffering all the filth from the other side?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a point of emotion, not a point of order.

Mr. Lawson: Are innuendoes regularly to be thrown about by that crowd on the opposite side of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to his opinion, but it is not a point of order.

Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend has already told the Leader of the House that he fully accepts his assurance that the copies of the Bill were not given to Labour back benchers. He said this quite clearly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] That is a withdrawal. My hon. Friend has accepted the assurance of the Leader of the House. What I am saying to the right hon. Gentleman is


that hon. Members behind him were given the opportunity of putting down their Amendments, or their Amendments were put down by the Government. That is what happened. The Leader of the House would do better to acknowledge that fact straightly and honestly to the House and stop treating us in this shabby fashion.

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's strictures. I know that his hon. Friend has now withdrawn, but I am sorry to say that I thought that his withdrawal was done rather ungraciously.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we can move on.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Should not all members of the Standing Committee have been treated on a fair and equal basis? Was not an advantage given to Members who happen to be on the opposite side of the House? Has not the Minister a cheek to adopt his present attitude when he shamefully bulldozed the Bill through with a Guillotine?

Mr. Peart: If there was any advantage, it was to the spokesman for the Opposition with a Bill in his pocket.

Mr. Leadbitter: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that in the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends we are talking about Amendments put down by members of the Standing Committee? They sat on the Committee and they know the Bill as it is amended, and, therefore, it is quite proper—[HON. MEMBERS: "HOW?"]— because we sat on the Committee. Will my right hon. Friend accept that we sat on that Bill, we were the Members responsible for amending it, and that it is quite competent for Members on this

side of the House or the opposite side to submit Amendments to the Bill? There is nothing unusual in that.

Mr. G. Campbell: On a point of order —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall hear the hon. Gentleman on a point of order, but I suggest that we might get away from this now.

Mr. Campbell: As a number of new Clauses were to be fitted into the Bill in different places the Clause numbers were to be changed, so it was impossible for hon. Members to be sure of references to the Clauses.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order; it is a point of fact. I hope that we can move on now.
I undertook yesterday to take up a broad point raised by the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), who wondered whether it was right that Amendments for the Report stage of the Bill could be accepted before the amended Bill was published.
The answer is that Members have the right to table Amendments to a Bill as soon as it is reported. It has always been the practice of the Public Bill Office to accept Amendments before the Bill was published. In consequence, it has sometimes in the past been necessary to accept amendments with incorrect page and line references—

Hon. Members: The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not on the previous issue at all.
It has consequently sometimes been necessary to accept Amendments with incorrect page and line references, which were corrected as soon as the amended Bill was available.

ABOLITION OF FIDELITY BONDING

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Edward Milne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish fidelity bonding and similar practices in the retail and distributive trades; and for connected purposes.
The really iniquitous part of bonding is the manner in which the bond is used by some employers in the retail and distributive trades, and could be used by all, as a means of insuring the employer's stock in a retail establishment at the expense of the manager's integrity and his future employment prospects. If there is need for a fidelity bond, it should be confined to the personal integrity of the manager, and not utilised as an instrument for insuring the stocks in the various retail distributive outlets of the country.
The practice in the retail and distributive trades at present is mainly confined to the retail footwear and retail wines and spirits sections. The system is that where a person is employed as a branch manager the employer indemnifies himself in the event of any loss being sustained through shortage of stock or cash. The employer takes out a bond with an insurance company and himself pays the premiums. The difficulty is that in many instances—in fact, nearly all—the branch managers are in complete ignorance of the procedure and what it can mean if such a bond is claimed upon.
While the system gives protection to the employer, it inflicts injustice upon a branch manager who finds himself with a substantial stock shortage, although he has exercised all reasonable care and supervision. I will endeavour to show in the short time at my disposal how these difficulties can arise.
If the employer seeks indemnity under the bond, the insurance company has to be notified, and this is where part of the practice which we seek to abolish is so unfair. Although it would seem that the reimbursement of the loss by the insurance company is precisely what the bond is intended to provide, and for which the premiums have been paid, the insurers may, after satisfying themselves as to the validity of the loss, demand that the branch manager shall make repayment for the loss.
Whether this is done or not, in most cases in the retail distributive trades the manager's services are terminated. The insurance company, in that case, can refuse to issue a further bond to a prospective employer covering that branch manager. Therefore, severe hardship can be inflicted on the employment prospects of the branch manager.
Another harsh aspect of the system is that a branch manager who knows that he has taken every care to avoid a stock shortage may be faced with such a shortage and, rather than take the risk of the bond held against him being claimed upon, he pays up what is charged against him. This makes him appear to be guilty. He prefers, in the prevailing conditions in the retail distributive trades, to pay for the loss out of his own pocket rather than run the greater risk to which I have already referred.
It is perfectly correct that a branch manager, on taking up his appointment, accepts responsibility for stock, and the remuneration he receives is supposed to be adequate to cover such responsibility, but, in the rapidly changing conditions of the retail distributive trades, he is in a more vulnerable position now than was his predecessor in the much smaller outlets of retail distribution for which bonding was introduced.
In addition to the overall supervision of his branch, a branch manager has to spend more time dealing with customers because of the staff shortage. There is a big turnover of labour, and mistakes made by inexperienced staff in the prices charged and in attention to stock may result in shortages arising at the time of stock-taking. Stock-taking is often done by people who have no intimate knowledge of the difficulties experienced in the particular shop where that is being done.
I do not want to deal with clerical errors, customer pilferage, and so on, but they are all the responsibility of a branch manager and with the changing pattern of retail distribution, a single individual finds it extremely difficult to keep pace with these matters. We know, by our shopping experience, what those changes are. There are difficulties experienced not only by branch managers but also by the customers, as we have seen from the increasing number of prosecutions. Clerical errors can arise in the branch,


the head office, or the warehouse, but in the last analysis the error has to be faced by the branch manager.
An added burden is put on the branch manager by all this inexperience and carelessness, at whatever level it may occur. Increasingly, relief managers are appointed, because of the size of retail outlets and the methods of retail distribution, and such relief managers are out of touch with the shops which they are called upon to manage.
This is why the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers, acting on behalf of its members who are employed particularly in the retail footwear trade, have had discussions with the Multiple Shoe Retailers' Association on the question of altering this system, which appears to be heavily loaded in favour of the employers and severely detrimental to the branch managers.
I do not need to tell the House about the development in the retail distributive trades and about the introduction of Selective Employment Tax, which have added to the complications of a branch manager's existence. The purpose of the tax was to reduce the number of employees in the retail distributive trade.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Member that he is introducing the Bill under the Ten Minute Rule.

Mr. Milne: I have been keeping a very careful watch on the clock, and I think that I am looking at the same clock as you are, Mr. Speaker. I am reasonably well inside my time at the moment.
The purpose of the tax is to compel many people who are working in the distributive trade to move into the manufacturing industries, and it has led to depleted staffs in many sectors of the distributive trade.
The increase in consumer spending has resulted in many mergers and monopolies in the distributive trades. Increases in sales of 38 per cent. to 40 per cent. are reported. All these things add to the pressures on the branch manager. Many responsibilities which the branch manager

entered into on taking up his job are not among those now being encountered by the branch manager in his day-to-day tasks of management.
Board of Trade statistics on the census of retail distribution would show exactly how the present trend in mergers is accelerating. The real revolution in retail distribution is in the increasing power of the multiple store, both in the number of stores, and in the increasing turnover of the retail trade. A multiple shop manager is not, in the main, responsible for altering or for buying the stock. This is usually determined for him at a distance and from a central warehouse.
Following discussions with the Multiple Shoe Retailers' Association and representatives of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, a recommendation has been issued to the Association members to inform employees, if they are bonded, of the extent to which the bond applies, so that at least now the retail shop manager will know what type of bond is being issued and taken upon his behalf.
This is a big step forward, but it is all the more necessary to have legislation to eliminate the evils of bonding and bring the distributive trades in Britain into line with the second half of the century.
In accordance with the Ten Minute Rule covering the presentation of a Private Members' Bill, I conclude by asking the House to give me leave to introduce what is a very necessary Measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Milne, Mr. H. Boardman, Mr. George Craddock, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Padley, Mr. J. T. Price, and Mr. Leadbitter.

ABOLITION OF FIDELITY BONDING

Bill to abolish fidelity bonding and similar practices in the retail and distributive trades; and for connected purposes; presented accordingly, and read the First Time; to be read a Second Time upon Friday, 24th May and to be printed. [Bill. 141.]

Orders of the Day — GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: May I announce to the House that I have selected the Amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and a number of her hon. Friends?

4.1 p.m.

The Minister of Power (Mr. R. J. Gunter): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The main purpose of the Bill is to raise the Gas Council's power to borrow money by £1,200 million. The reasons for this are explained both in the Memorandum on the Gas and Electricity Bill and in the Gas Council's brochure "Investment in Natural Gas", copies of which are in the Vote Office. It may be helpful, however, if I explain the position briefly.
The last Act to extend the borrowing powers of the gas industry was the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Act, 1965, which set a limit of £1,200 million. It was expected at the time that this would suffice until 1970, but of course, no North Sea gas had been discovered then. Now that we have this gas, which should be of great benefit to the British economy, it is essential to develop its use as rapidly as possible, as it offers gains in terms of relatively low-cost industrial fuel, savings in balance of payments, and security of supply.
As the House knows from the debate at this time last year on the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order, we are planning on the use of 2,000 million cubic feet a day of natural gas in 1970–71; and the Fuel Policy White Paper envisaged that, beyond this, it would be reasonable to plan on the basis of 4,000 million cubic feet a day by 1975. The effect of this is to double the sale of gas by 1970-71, and to double this again by 1975. This involves massive increases in investment.
The Gas Council estimates that the rate of investment is likely to average just over £300 million a year for the period up to March, 1973. This compares with only £50 million a year in the 10 years up to and including 1961–62, though there has,

of course, been a rising trend to the present level since.
Total capital requirements in the five years up to March, 1973 are expected to be about £1,600 million, of which about £500 million will be met from the industry's internal resources, leaving about £1,100 million to be met from external borrowing. Three-quarters of the estimated capital requirements of £1,600 million—i.e., £1,200 million—comprises expenditure on fixed assets. Of this, almost half, £546 million, is on bulk transmission and storage, while almost another half, £532 million, is on distribution and consumer service.
About one-sixth of the total, £276 million is for the conversion of consumers' equipment to burn natural gas instead of town gas. The remainder, £246 million, comprises £44 million for North Sea exploration and development, £63 million for increased working capital, £90 million for gas manufacture, and a residual of £49 million for offices, land, vehicles, etc.
At this point, I must emphasise that this vast expenditure is far from being fully committed. I am not asking the House to agree that this money should be either borrowed or spent at this stage. I am asking the House to agree that, if our expectations about the gas available are fulfilled, the gas industry should be allowed to make the necessary investment to utilise this new fuel.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Could the right hon. Gentleman clear up one matter which is puzzling me? He said that the total for five years to March, 1973 would be £1,600 million. However, in the figures submitted by the industry to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on Wednesday, 10th April, the industry's total figures for capital investment and fixed assets add up to only £1,221 million. If one adds the right hon. Gentleman's figure of £63 million working capital to that, it comes to £1,284 million, and not £1,600 million.

Mr. Gunter: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue my speech, I will deal with that point presently.
If it became clear that more, or less, natural gas would be available or sold than has been assumed, the programme would have to be adjusted accordingly. While the industry has broad five-year


plans, firm plans are made only one year ahead, with provisional plans for a second year. The industry can, therefore, check on the programme as it rolls forward, and, subject of course to Ministerial approval, only commit itself to expenditure in the light of the most recent knowledge.
In view of the need for flexibility, however, I have incorporated in the Bill two special provisions about the borrowing limits. On the one hand, I have allowed for the possibility that expenditures and borrowings may exceed the current estimates, by including a sizeable margin for contingencies. I think that this is the point puzzling the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). The sum chosen—which due to rounding of other figures comes to the precise-looking £237 million—is large by any standards, but it is not out of line with the scale of the gas industry's operations and with the length of the period—five years—which the borrowing provision is aimed to cover. As the House knows, it is less than three years since the last Borrowing Powers Bill for this industry, despite the inclusion then of a margin of £200 million for contingencies.
On the other hand, I have proposed an interim borrowing limit, equivalent to only £400 million of new borrowing, which should ensure that the finances of the gas industry come under consideration by the House within two years of the passage of this Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) will note that, in view of the Amendment tabled by her and by her hon. Friends.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Sir Gerald Nabarro (Worcestershire, South) rose—

Mr. Gunter: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has threatened me with an hour-long speech. I hope that I shall be allowed to get on with mine.
We shall be able to decide then precisely what provision should be made for borrowing in the ensuing three years or so. If a smaller provision than £800 million seems appropriate, it would be possible for an Order to be made for that, with a second order for extension to the final limit, if the House so wished, as was done in the case of the Electricity Borrowing Powers Order, 1966.
I see that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South is getting edgy again. There is one thing, and one thing only, on which I have agreed with him in the past—that is, that there is the greatest necessity for Parliamentary scrutiny of the use of public money and I would have thought that this provision would satisfy him.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gunter: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
In addition to the control exercised by the House through the borrowing limits, the industry's capital expenditures are subject to control through the Government's annual review of the investment programmes of the Gas Council and area boards.
Moreover, the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries is at present examining the industry's plans for natural gas and we also have the National Board for Prices and Incomes looking into its efficiency.
This very heavy capital investment reflects a vast programme of work on the ground. The main pipeline system from Canvey to Leeds has already been supplemented by a feeder from the North Sea—from Easington to Sheffield—and a second is due to be commissioned this year, from Bacton to near Rugby. A third, from Bacton to near Hitchin, is being laid, while two more are planned, to make an average capacity of about 3,000 million cubic feet daily. The backbone main is also being extended to the remaining four area boards so that North Sea gas can be supplied to all of them by 1970.
The quickest way for the boards to use North Sea gas is to take it into reforming plant at present fed by oil, since this enables them to supply it to the consumer as towns gas, for which, of course, no conversion is required. This substitution of oil feedstock by the new gas will also be especially helpful to the balance of payments in the next few years.
In the longer term however, it will be cheaper to convert everybody to take North Sea gas "neat" rather than to put up the additional reforming plant which would be needed to convert all this gas to towns gas. Moreover, by virtue


of the higher calorific value of the natural gas, the capacity of mains and storage is greatly increased. The total cost of the necessary conversions to enable the consumer to take North Sea gas direct will be about £400 million. Nevertheless, there is expected to be saving compared with reforming, of about £300 million at present value.
As the House knows, the gas industry's take of coal has been progressively reduced as a result of the development of the more economic oil processes. This trend is expected to continue, with the result that, by the early 1970s, coal will no longer be used in the industry. At present and in the immediate future, however, the industry, is doing its best to assist the coal industry in its difficult problems, by using more coal—an extra 800,000 tons this year—than it otherwise would. As provided in the Coal Industry Act, 1967 the Exchequer will contribute to the industry's additional costs flowing from this, to the extent of about £2 million.
This heavy programme of investment must be geared to the needs of the consumer and I should now like to turn to the industry's plans for selling this gas. In order to double its market by 1970–71, and double it again by 1975, clearly an immense effort will be required. Recently domestic consumption, which represents about 60 per cent. of total demand, has been increasing rapidly—by about 10 per cent. a year—and the industry is confident that substantial further increases will be obtained, especially in space heating and central heating. It will also, however, have to penetrate the industrial market, which currently accounts for about 28 per cent. of total demand, and do so on a substantial scale.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there will be an adequate return on this enormous investment without any large increases in prices to the consumer?

Mr. Gunter: I am assured of that, and I shall be dealing with prices later.
The industry expects to make most progress in the premium markets where the special qualities of natural gas—for example, its cleanliness and high calorific value—are of most value, and, inciden-

tally, where the gain to the balance of payments is greatest since the fuel displaced is likely to be oil. But other industrial outlets will also be required to help secure a good load factor and rapid build-up. In order to make the most rapid possible progress on marketing, the industry has been strengthening its marketing staff and the House will be aware that my predecessor appointed Mr. J. A. Buckley, formerly Chairman of the East Midlands Board, to the Gas Council itself, with effect from 1st May.
Clearly, to expand sales at this rate, the price of gas will have to be attractive in relation to other fuels. There is great hope, to put it no higher, that North Sea gas will prove a cheap fuel and the gas industry will be under severe commercial pressure to make it so. But it will be four years or so before the new system of supply is fully established and most consumers converted, and in the meantime there will be the very heavy capital investment which I have described. While, therefore, we expect prices eventually to fall it would be over-optimistic to expect this in the near future.
Certainly, most householders are likely to get a modest reduction as they are converted, but the real immediate beneficiary as natural gas becomes available in each district is likely to be industry, in so far as special terms can be negotiated for large-scale demand with a good load factor or on a seasonal or inter-ruptible basis.
I now come to Clause 6 of the Bill, in which I seek power to appoint up to another two full-time members of the Gas Council. The Clause needs to be considered as part of the process of development of the organisation of the industry to cope with the major change to natural gas. As I will explain in a moment, I will expect to make further proposals to the House during the next Session of Parliament.
There is no doubt that the industry as organised under the Gas Act, 1948, has acquitted itself well. It took over about 1,000 gas undertakings and has welded them into concentrated supply systems in each area based on large and efficient gas-making plants. It was in the throes of a revolutionary change to more efficient plant based on oil when the wealth of findings in the North Sea was


established. In the 'sixties, the image of the industry has changed and demand for gas has grown rapidly. Morale is high. All this is to the credit of the industry.
As the industry becomes basically a distributor of North Sea gas, the manufacturing functions of area boards will gradually be phased out and it will become increasingly important and, indeed, necessary for decisions to be taken on a national basis and not area by area. Within the present statutory framework, the industry is itself strengthening its machinery for such national decisions.
At the same time, my predecessor and I have been giving very careful thought to the question whether any statutory changes are now called for. We have had very full consultation with the leaders of the industry, including representatives of labour.
We now have in mind changes intended to strengthen the central powers and duties of the Gas Council while leaving the area boards with their continuing and essential rô1es of bringing gas to the consumer and of providing the accompanying services. The Gas Council will need to have responsibility for the main policy decisions of the industry, including its investment decisions and financial performance, and the area boards will need to become responsible in those matters to the Gas Council.
The area boards will remain as statutory bodies with their responsibilities for supply—subject to the general policies of the Gas Council—and for safety, and their chairmen would remain members of the Gas Council and would be appointed by me.
These changes will require legislation, and I have it in mind to seek a place for the appropriate Bill in the programme for the next Session of Parliament.
The two further full-time members of the Council for whom provision is made in the Bill, are a further and urgent step in the evolution of the organisation of the industry, following the strengthening of the Council by the 1965 Act. It will enable me to appoint at once, without waiting for the more far-reaching legislation which I have outlined, new Council members to fill key posts at the centre, for example, to take charge of the industry's finance and economic planning.
Clauses 2 to 4, relating to borrowing in foreign currencies, take up a great deal of the Bill's space, but, I hope, will not take up much of our time today. Both the gas and electricity industries have expressed interest in being able to borrow in foreign currencies, in the expectation that, from time to time, this might be beneficial to them. The House will know that the Air Corporations were given a power to borrow in foreign currencies in Section 6 of the Air Corporations Act, 1966, and that the Greater London Council has been given a similar power.
No borrowing by the gas and electricity industries in foreign currency is intended at present, but Clauses 2 to 4 have been included in the Bill so that the power will be available for use if needed. In view of the great size of their investment programmes, however, it is unlikely that either of the industries will ever be able to raise any substantial part of their requirements for new money in this way.
Apart from the practical limitations of the supply of funds, the House will see that control is maintained through the requirement in the Clauses that the borrowing must be from persons, and on terms specified by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury.
The opportunity of the Bill has also been taken to seek a power for the gas and electricity industries to make their special skills and experience available to developing countries through agreements with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development.
There is nothing in Clause 5 obliging the industries to give assistance against their inclination, or to incur any expense on their own account. To the extent that the costs of any technical assistance are not recovered from the benefiting country or from one of the international aid agencies, they will be recoverable from the Minister of Overseas Development under agreements with him in accordance with his powers under Section 1 of the Overseas Aid Act, 1966.
I hope that the House will welcome the removal of the legal impediment to the flow of technical assistance from our gas and electricity industries, whose technical eminence makes them so well placed to give help in this way.
If I may reflect for a moment upon the Opposition Amendment, I would say that I accept immediately what it says in the first part of it, that there has been no debate on the White Paper on a specific Motion. I am bound to say that the White Paper seems not to have escaped the attention of the House, and that there were three or four occasions when it was discussed at some length. I wonder whether, in view of the history of this, and however cogent the argument that we should have had a specific debate on the White Paper, this would be a real reason for voting against the Second Reading.
More specifically, I would like to say to hon. Members opposite that I agree entirely with the last sentence of the Amendment, that there is the greatest necessity for Parliamentary review and consideration in detail of the expenditure of public money. I would have thought that the provisions in the Bill met this point. The Amendment says that considerable borrowing is necessary. The £400 million will have to be reviewed in two years and there is no reason at all why we should resist any clamour that this £800 million should be examined.
As we say in the Memorandum, we can have another Order to provide whatever it may be, another £400 million if it is working out that way, and then perhaps a final Order for another £400 million. I would have thought that this, allied to the other instruments that we have to review expenditure would be sufficient. The Opposition would have a continuing scrutiny of these large sums of public money. I am wondering whether, even at this stage we could not have this Bill without a vote against it.

Sir G. Nabarro: Not a hope.

Mr. Gunter: All I am saying is that the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley might give consideration to this, since we have gone out of our way to meet her legitimate fears.

4.26 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House, while recognising the need for a considerable increase in the borrowing powers

of the Gas Council to use North Sea gas, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, by permitting a further increase in public expenditure of up to £1,200 million, doubles the existing powers at a time when the White Paper on Fuel Policy, Command Paper No. 3438, from which it stems has not been debated, and when the most rigorous Parliamentary scrutiny of all public expenditure is especially necessary.
I greatly enjoyed the Minister's speech, as we almost always enjoy his speeches. In a way, he is one of the most difficult of right hon. Gentlemen to battle with, because he is so nice about everything. It would make one's job a lot easier if he were not so nice. I hope that he will listen carefully to what I have to say, because we have tabled this Amendment in a very serious manner.
There are very good reasons for not doing what he said, namely, allowing the whole amount, and then saying that it will be all right because we have control and that there will be opportunity for another Order. I can well imagine what would happen if we let the whole amount go through. The right hon. Gentleman would be back to the House with an Order and he would make the same sort of speech and say, "There cannot be much doubt that industry should have this amount as well".
May I now develop the argument which we wish to deploy over the Bill? First, we must look at it—the Bill requires enormous extra sums to be provided— against the general economic background. It is one in which we require, in the coming years, stringent control of public expenditure. We have had many debates on this, and the Government have had to go through some careful and close examinations and come up with decisions which have been very unpalatable to hon. Members opposite. There is no question but that we have to have stringent control of public expenditure.
We also have to have stringent control of public sector expenditure. For example, the Chancellor said on Budget day:
Looking further ahead"—
that is, after mid-1969—
… we shall ensure that the claims of the public sector are compatible with the total resources available as compared with other calls upon them. This will be the central task of this year's review of public expenditure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1968; Vol. 761, c. 259.]


We are to consider a very large new claim from the public sector. We must consider it in relation to other claims and see whether the full amount of this claim is justified under the very criteria which the Chancellor set out. There is also in the economic background the undertaking given by the Chancellor to the International Monetary Fund, that the central Government's operating requirements should not exceed £1,000 million next year. I note, in passing, that it would have exceeded that this year but for vastly increased taxation.
The Minister is putting forward to us for approval an enormously increased amount of extra borrowing for this particular industry—up to £1,200 million. It is pertinent to see how this borrowing can be financed. There are not many ways in which borrowing for the public sector can be financed. The first possibility is by taxation. The Minister is suggesting that one way of financing £1,200 million extra would be from taxation; that would put no extra charge at all on the Government's borrowing requirement. So we have to consider it against that background. Money does not just come from nowhere. Someone has to provide it.
The second means would be by genuine Government borrowing. Anyone who has read the debates on the National Loans Fund will know that there has been very little genuine Government borrowing over the last six to 10 years; and I know that part of that occurred during the lifetime of the Government of my party. The third method of financing this enormous sum is by inflation, or by printing the money. That, too, has serious consequences for individuals or for the economy. It is against that background that one must look at this particular demand for new expenditure, bearing in mind that the likely ways of financing it are by taxation or by inflation, with a little borrowing in between.
So much for the general economic background, which is extremely important. Let us look for a moment at the general fuel background to which the Minister has referred. First, there is the White Paper which he mentioned. This purported to plan the change from a two-fuel to a four-fuel economy and its objective was to re-assess the balance

between the fuels. We all know that one cannot have a policy for one fuel which does not have very extensive effects on others; and one of the Ministry's most difficult jobs is to co-ordinate the programmes of the nationalised industries and assess their investment programmes. I am quite sure we have not yet learned in politics how to deal with the nationalised industries. I know full well there is a Select Committee sitting on this subject which has not yet reported but in the meantime we have to try to coordinate the several programmes and to produce some coherent results.
That fuel policy said that one of its purposes was to lay down long-term policy guide lines which could be modified and adjusted in response to new developments. Broadly speaking, going through that White Paper, one sees that it was really done in two slices—planning up to about 1971 and then projections forward from that period. I note, again, that the Bill goes beyond the immediate planning period up to 1971 and goes very far indeed into the realm of conjecture. The period to 1971 was particularly significant in regard to the effect of this policy on coal, because the provision we made for coal terminated in 1971, before the provisions of this Bill have come to an end, so that it is important to consider the two together.
We must also consider the White Paper on Fuel Policy in relation to the future for gas, because there were extensive sections on this and all had certain characteristics. One of those characteristics, which was scarcely touched on in the Minister's speech, one of the outstanding things about natural gas, is the uncertainty of the amount, the uncertainty of the rate of depletion and the uncertainty about sales. Indeed, whenever we look in the White Paper at comments on natural gas there are conclusions about the uncertain strategy, the uncertain amount, the uncertain field. On the face of it, this does not seem at all a recipe for approving £1,200 million.
Let me give specific examples. Paragraph 14 of the White Paper said:
For the longer term, much more needs to be known before it will be possible to establish precisely the rôle to be played by natural gas in our energy supplies.
It went on to deal with the uncertainties


and in paragraph 24 it returned to the same theme:
The uncertainties are too great for it to be possible to settle the long-term strategy on gas absorption.
The White Paper returned to this again in Appendix II, when it talked about the uncertainty of the total amount and went on to speak of another uncertainty which we are always up against in fuel policy —uncertainty as to whether this fuel will be displaced by another which may be cheaper. So we have to keep in the back of our minds the thought that the expenditure which we may or may not approve today may prove abortive in 20 years' time because another fuel or another system has been discovered.
The whole of the White Paper is really shrouded in uncertainty so far as its passages about natural gas are concerned and in looking at the Gas Council's case and the Memorandum accompanying the Bill I had the feeling that they had taken the tentative conclusions without the qualifications which the fuel White Paper made at every stage.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: In an interesting debate of this kind, to dwell so much, in the manner the hon. Lady has, on uncertainties, is not quite a fair presentation of what is in the White Paper. Would she agree, so as to amplify the point she has made, that the words following those she has used are:
But we know already that the reserves are very substantial and this is the reason for the Government's decision to authorise construction"—
of pipe lines, and so forth? The hon. Lady has stressed only the uncertainties.

Mrs. Thatcher: I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman says about the sentence which follows in the White Paper. We already know that the reserves are very substantial. What we do not yet know is the ease with which those can be got to the consumer. We have only one small field which is delivering, and that has come up against far more difficulties than were expected because of the uncertainties in any new operation of this kind.
Turning to the point to which I was coming, past investment policies in relation to the fuel industry; again we are looking at an enormous sum to be spent

to produce more energy, to get more sales. We have not been very successful, as a House, in our judgment of past investment policies in relation to other fuel industries.
We have, for example, poured capital into coal to produce coal at any price and the result has been that an enormous quantity of coal, about 28 million tons, is now on the ground and cannot readily be sold. There we have an enormous investment a large part of which has proved abortive because we have already had to write off a lot; and one of the things we shall want to know is how much more has to be written off if the gas policy goes througn.
Then we went into electricity and poured enormous sums into that industry. Its borrowing limits are in excess of £4,000 million. This was a great new technology and we invested enormous sums in it; and according to last year's report, the industry is short of sales. It has more investment than sales would have warranted and the result has been an increase in the price to consumers because the cost of investment had to be spread over smaller sales. That is the record against which we are looking at this new investment. There have been these failures properly to assess the investment in particular fuel industries, failures which have led to surplus stocks or surplus electricity. The Minister cannot blame us if we are very wary when we look at this new Measure to ensure that we are not doing exactly the same again, particularly against the background of a totally new industry and the uncertainties which I have outlined.

Mr. Lubbock: Would not the hon. Lady agree that there is this very substantial difference between the two examples which she quoted, that the market for coal is declining and perhaps vanishing, whereas the market for electricity is ever increasing? If one made some small errors in one's capital investment in the past, one would catch up with them later with the growth of demand.

Mrs. Thatcher: I do not disagree that the market for electricity is expanding. But it does not alter the fact that we could have avoided some of the price increases now had our assessment of the amount of investment been better. The load forecasts were badly wrong.

Sir G. Nabarro: May I reinforce my hon. Friends argument? I am grateful to her for giving a lesson to the right hon. Gentleman in Parliamentary courtesies. My hon. Friend quoted the undistributed stocks of coal at 28 million tons. She might have added that in terms of the nation's resources another 14 million tons of distributed stocks are lying on the ground, making a total of 42 million tons, worth about £220 million of the nation's finances sterilised and wrapped up. Why does not the Minister apply himself to that factor?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am sure that my hon. Friend has the figures absolutely right. I do not usually quote the distributed stocks, for one reason, which my hon. Friend will be the first to appreciate. The distributed stocks have usually been paid for, so that the Coal Board has received an amount of money for them. They do not enter into the deficit.
There is one other background factor regarding the attitude of the public to the great development of North Sea gas. Most ordinary members of the public would have taken the view that there appeared to be a large supply. Therefore, because the raw material costs are negligible, they would have it in their homes at very much cheaper prices than any other fuel. It is slowly emerging that this is an absolute myth, and that the cost of getting the gas to their homes and of converting the equipment in their homes is so great that it will negative the advantages of the cheaper raw material.
We shall be very wise to make it clear to the public that there are not substantial price reductions coming in gas. Indeed, they would not believe us if we said that there were. They have just suffered an enormous increase in the price of gas. It does not help very much if we say, "We shall increase the price a lot now, but take it down a ½d. a therm when you get the natural gas".
We must look at the matter from the consumers' viewpoint. The costs of conversion are very great. In theory, they are not borne by the consumer; in practice, they are. Equally, in practice, what happens is that somebody comes to one's house, shakes his head sadly over one's gas cooker and says that it is unconvertible because it is too old, although it is working perfectly well, and shakes his head sadly over the gas fire, which gives

perfectly good service, and says "You should have a new one". This is happening on quite a large scale, because people carry on using equipment for a very long time.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson) indicated dissent.

Mrs. Thatcher: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman never reads the women's pages in magazines and newspapers. He should. He might then know more about gas and electricity and the public than he does. People carry on using their equipment for far longer than manufacturers or gas boards would approve.

Mr. Frank Tomney: There is another side to the story. The gas boards do not install central heating systems; they have not the gas fitters to do the job. These jobs are let out to contractors. That is all right if the contractors are efficient. Usually they are, because they are qualified. But what happens afterwards when it comes to making repairs? The gas board sends along a sub-contractor. I have had this experience. The subcontractor charges 100 per cent. more than the gas board.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I give one of the examples to which I was referring when I told the Parliamentary Secretary that he should read the women's pages. There was a very amusing article in the Sunday Express on 21st April by Veronica Papworth entitled,
I am going to be converted—and there's nothing I can do about it.
She gives an account of how the gas man called. The article states:
… we looked at the gas fires in the bedrooms and his face grew graver and graver. 'I'm afraid', he advised me, rather in the manner of a doctor diagnosing smallpox, 'that we shall have to take them away'…. How much … was a new one?' Roughly £20'.
He looked at something else in the dining room.
'Out of date', said the young man firmly, 'there's nothing to be done with that'. 'But it goes like a bomb', I protested.
I had some gas fires in my old house before I went into the one where I am now in which gas is not laid on, so I have not a vested interest in the Bill. The


public should be told, and told plainly, that reductions in gas prices are a myth and totally unlikely to come about.
I turn to the case which the Minister quotes for the increased powers which has been put to us by the Gas Council in the brochure to which the Memorandum refers. I will take it point by point, because there is a very convenient summary at the beginning. This is the case for which the gas industry is asking for extra borrowing powers. The first point I take was:
The Government state in the White Paper on Fuel Policy that they expect natural gas to meet about 15 per cent. of the total demand for energy in Britain by 1975".
That is a direct, authoritative statemen. It gives no hint of the background uncertainties to which I have referred.
Point No. 2 is very important:
… this policy involves ' the wholesale displacement of existing gas-making plant and methods, a nation-wide conversion programme, and an expansion of sales by nearly fourfold between now and the mid-1970s'.
What we shall be doing if the programme goes through is writing off not obsolete equipment, but brand-new technologically up-to-date equipment which is now being installed to meet demands and will continue to be installed for the next 10 years. Certainly, the coal carbonisation plant is being written off, but so is the oil feed stock plant, which has already caused a revolution in technology. This is one of the costs of introducing natural gas and one of the reasons why it will not be cheap.
We are entitled to ask the Minister whether it is wise for the economy that new, up-to-date equipment should be written off much faster than it should be when it would give many years' service and is itself a tremendous technological advance for the gas industry. But the right hon. Gentleman has accepted that it should be written off over a period of 15 years, which is far less than its normal life, and he appears—

Mr. J. T. Price: Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton) rose—

Mrs. Thatcher: May I finish my sentence? It will be an unusual experience for me in this debate.
I understood from the evidence given to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, of which the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) is, I note, a member, that the period was 15 years or the rest of the natural depreciation life, whichever was the less. There seems to be some discrepancy. Some documents say 15 years and some say 10 years. In any event, it is being written off whilst it is still comparatively new and would give many years of service. The Minister seems to have accepted, even in our present economic conditions, that that is good for the economy of the country. I question it.
We then come to "a nationwide conversion programme", on which I have already commented.
Concerning
an expansion of sales by nearly fourfold between now and the mid-1970s",
the Memorandum submitted by the Gas Council to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries said that that fourfold expansion to the mid-1970s could not take place on existing proven reserves; more would have to be discovered before that expansion could take place. We are here in the realm of supreme uncertainty. I will give the exact quotation from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, Sub-Committee B, Wednesday, 10th April, 1968, paragraph 5, on page 19:
The Government's White Paper on Fuel Policy, Command 3438, accepted that it would be a reasonable assumption for planning purposes to set the 4,000 m.c.f.d. target as early as 1975, although for this quantity to be produced the discovery of additional reserves to those already found will be necessary.
Here is a policy based on the finding of additional reserves and assuming that they will be found. We are being asked to approve £1,200 million depending on the finding of additional reserves.
I turn to the third point:
The changes in production technology have kept gas a competitive fuel and sales have grown at an average rate of 9 per cent. per annum in the last four years.
They have. On the oil technology, gas has done very well. I have been impressed by the rate at which the new technology has been accepted and the efficiency with which it was produced. If the Minister accepts the rate of obsolescence which has been mentioned, he will have a tremendous problem of redundancy in the


gas industry as well as in the coal industry. There will not be jobs of the same calibre in the gas industry under the new natural gas as there have been under the technology which depended on oil feedstock.
The fourth point is:
Natural gas is likely to make the largest contribution to import saving when supplied as a premium fuel.
This is one of the great conclusions of the White Paper. It is really saying that we are embarking on probably £1,000 million of expenditure to get a different sort of gas to cookers and central heating systems on the assumption that the sales will go up fourfold.
I am not prepared to accept that assumption. I think that when a number of these fires have to be changed, at considerable cost and people realise that the price will not come down, the demand will not be there to the same extent as in the past. The demand will not rise at the same rate. I question whether we are wise in spending this enormous sum on getting a different gas to fires, central heating systems and cookers which are working well and being supplied with town gas at the moment.
The fifth point is:
Bulk sales to industry and possibly some power stations will help to build up quickly the total flow of gas from the North Sea fields.
There is probably some point in saying that to get the benefit of natural gas to the economy we have to get it cheaply into industry. If that is the economic benefit, we do not need to get it to every cooker and central heating apparatus in the country. If we want to benefit the - economy we go to the industry; we do not need this enormous conversion and distribution network.
I suspect that we are getting the costs all ways up. We are getting the expenditure on the domestic conversion network and we are having to write off modern plant. This will have its effect on coal, in which we have already invested a lot, and will produce further redundancies. Does the Minister now see where some of our doubts arise? Whatever happens, we are pouring investment into every aspect. I doubt whether the economy will ultimately benefit to the extent indicated by the Minister.
Just a word about, "and possibly some power stations ", because it is said that gas will go into power stations. I am not a member of the Select Committee and, as right hon. and hon. Members know, one cannot get the transcripts of evidence until long after the evidence is given. However, from what I can make out, the question of the supply of gas to power stations is in a bit of a muddle. It could only be with the Minister's consent and it could not be before 1971. After 1973, according to the Government's White Paper, the power stations will be entitled to choose the most economic fuel, but they could not choose gas, because gas has first to be offered to the area boards, and they could get it after that only with the Minister's consent.

Mr. Palmer: The hon. Lady can take it from me that natural gas is being used at Hams Hall power station, near Birmingham, and being used successfully.

Mrs. Thatcher: I take that from the White Paper as well. I think that there is also one other which is being converted. Presumably, that has been done as an experimental project with the consent of the Minister.
I want to inquire about the other implications of putting gas into power stations. Lord Robens gave evidence to the Select Committee the other day. I have not got the transcript, but I thought that he asked a cogent question, which we should also ask. The provision that we made for redundant miners to help the coal industry expires in 1971. If we put gas into power stations—which may be very advisable, but I leave that to the judgment of others—what will be the effect on the coal mining industry? Are there to be other redundancies in addition to those we already expect, and shall we have to make further provision for them because we burn natural gas to the boilers? Are we to make further provision for the write off of more pits and further provision for social benefits for miners? These are questions the Minister should ask.
I also understand, dealing with the period 1971 to 1975, that this policy was not discussed with the Chairman of the National Coal Board. I understand that upstairs he said that the White Paper's figures up to 1975 were done without any


consultation of any kind at his level in the Board. It does not seem to be carrying out the Minister's duty of co-ordination between the fuel industries and the duty of the most effective investment of people's money if there was not that consultation and not the requisite amount of co-ordination.
The sixth point concerned the amount spent on fixed assets and other things. It transpires that the gas industry wants £1,600 million to carry out this uncertain programme. As more evidence comes before the Select Committee more doubts seem to arise about how far the programme could have been thought through because of the uncertainty. We have seen only a comparatively small part of the evidence. The part in Point 6 which takes my breath away, although it seems to have no effect on the Minister, is that, when it has said how much extra it wants, over an extra £1,000 million, it goes on with this immortal sentence:
The industry is aware that the next five years will be a period of rapid change and that its planning must remain flexible. In view of all the circumstances, the Council considers it would be sensible to have a reserve borrowing Dower of £237 million.
Just £237 million extra between friends! It is quite incredible, at a time when we need stringent control in the public sector, to say, "Please, we want £1,000 million. There are so many doubts and uncertainties. We must be flexible, but we must not be flexible in reducing the amount. You must give us flexibility in case we have made any great errors of judgment so can we have another £237 million?" But that £237 million would have to be found in taxation, savings or inflation; on top of everything else, £237 million for the mistakes that have been made or the calculations which they could not do.

Mr. Leadbitter: Mr. Leadbitter rose—

Mrs. Thatcher: Please let me get on.I am taking up far too much time, although it is not really my fault. It is other hon. Members who are taking it up.
That is the case which the gas industry makes for requiring the extra £1,200 million. The Memorandum before the House then points out, as did the Minister, that this could be done in two slices. It could be done with a first slice of an extra £400 million. If this extra £400 million

were added to the borrowing powers which have not yet been used, there would be over £500 million available in borrowing powers to the Gas Council.
In view of the uncertainties which I had described at length and the possible effect on other fuel industries, that is, I suggest, absolutely as much as we should let them have at present. Then the Minister should have come back to the House, not with an Order late at night but with another fuel Bill. By that time we should know the result of the investigation of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries into the Gas Council's case, which is being conducted by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster); we should know the effect upon coal; we should know the other possible uses of natural gas. I think that it would be unwise to go beyond that extra £400 million, which is, in fact, an extra £500 million above what they have used at present.
The Memorandum also refers to other new borrowing powers, which the Minister, I thought, skated over rather quickly. It is, of course, very unsual for a utility undertaking to have power to raise money in foreign currency. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one other case of a nationalised industry having such power, but that industry is a substantial earner of foreign currency; therefore, it can repay in the coin in which it borrows. This industry is not a substantial earner of foreign currency; therefore, someone else will have to find the foreign currency with which to repay.
By permitting foreign borrowing the Minister is defeating part of his own argument. Part of his argument for natural gas is the great saving in foreign currency that its injection into the system will produce. That is already partly modified by the fact that a lot of the capital which has gone into developing North Sea gas has been foreign, and that foreign capital has to be serviced, which means a lot of money going out annually. The right hon. Gentleman is now further defeating his own argument by saying that the industry can borrow foreign money, which means that that loan will have to be serviced annually in foreign currency. So if his argument is foreign exchange saving he is partially defeating it by the provisions in his own Bill. If he wants to save foreign exchange he ought not to replace coal with gas.
I should like to tackle the Minister on another point. It is said in the Memorandum and in the Bill itself that any foreign borrowing would go against the total borrowing limit. Two points arise out of this. First, the foreign borrowing would not be done through the National Loans Fund. Therefore, it would not affect in any way the Government's central borrowing requirement. I suspect that this is a way of getting round the central borowing requirement, of spending more money but not having it enter into the calculations of that requirement.
Second, the amount borrowed would go against the total, but there is a provision in Clause 2 with regard to the Electricity Council, and it is reflected in other Clauses with regard to the other councils, that the borrowing limit can be exceeded to redeem the loan. So the £1,200 million is not the full extent of the borrowing which, if the Bill goes through, we shall be asked to consider. It would be greater than that by whatever amount the Treasury said the loan could be.
I hope that I have said more than enough to express the great uncertainty which surrounds the development of North Sea gas. I am the first to admit that we must get some of it into the system, but, in view of the uncertainties —the fact that the Select Committee is now investigating it, that new problems arise every day—we should be unwise to give the total amount which the Minister is asking. No harm would be done by giving the lesser amount. Indeed, I think that it would be greatly to the advantage of the nation in the present economic circumstances, if we stopped at a further £400 million. I hope that the Minister will consider what I have said, as I have considered what he has said.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: The House enjoyed enormously the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who used a number of very sound arguments with which I agreed, but she did not convince me that the Opposition Amendment was necessary. There is a very strong case for the House debating the White Paper, but I do not see why the gas industry or the electricity industry should have to wait for its money until the House of Commons arranges its business better,

which seems to be the implication of the Amendment.
I want to raise three points on this Bill. The first is in connection with the proposal that the electricity industry and the gas industry should have the power to borrow capital from abroad if necessary. I welcome this because I think that it will lead to a more sensible approach generally to the whole question of raising capital for the nationalised industries. I will try to explain why.
I have always been a critic of the way in which electricity prices to consumers were increased last autumn by the area electricity boards. There were increases of 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. in some cases, and increases of that magnitude are obviously no laughing matter at a time when electricity is used extensively in homes by every social class in the community, quite apart from the effect on industry and commerce. In my own constituency—and I am sure that this has been the experience of hon. Members generally and certainly of my hon. Friends on this side of the House—this increase did much to diminish public confidence in the prices and incomes policy.
The principal reason for those increases was that it was necessary to allow for the; situation which had been brought about by the earlier growth rate in electricity consumption proposed in the National Plan. At that time, several years ago now, looking ahead to a vastly increased growth rate, the electricity supply industry borrowed a great deal of money in order to make plant, equipment, transmission lines and distribution systems available.
Then there followed the deflationary policy of my right hon. Friends, as a result of which there has been a cutback in the rate of electricity growth. Therefore, there is at the moment in the industry a good deal of unremunerative capital. As the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said, this does not matter too much because it is a temporary difficulty; it is only a matter of time before the natural load growth overtakes the surplus generating and transmission capacity. As we used to say when I worked in the electricity supply industry, it is always a good thing to get extra copper into the plant


or into the ground; sooner or later the load will follow it.
Hence, a sensible policy for the electricity boards, and one which most of them would have preferred to follow— something which my right hon. Friends who are responsible for fuel and power policy have never disclosed—would have been to spread the costs reflected in increased prices over three or four years ahead. Instead, the industry was required to get back on target in only one year. That meant to maintain its standard financial rate of return on assets, which is fixed for the electricity industry —no one knows why this figure was chosen, since it is different from that for the gas industry—at 124 per cent. That is the magic figure which the electricity industry must work to.
Since increased borrowing from the Treasury was forbidden—I suspect that this was a Treasury policy anyway—the consumers had to find the money immediately. In short, today's consumers are having to pay the charges on the capital for equipment which tomorrow's consumers will use. Had the electricity boards, through the Electricity Council, been able to borrow overseas, as they were prepared to do, to cover the charges of their temporarily unremunerative capital, that would have helped considerably to steady prices.
I am not of course suggesting that favourable term overseas borrowing would by itself have avoided entirely the sizeable increase in retail tariffs, but it would have done something to modify it. To modify it further, two other steps would have been necessary, neither of which the Government had yet taken. I had some correspondence with the previous Minister on this issue. It was, first, necessary to equalise the rate of return expected on assets as between the gas and electricity industries. As I said, electricity is expected to return 12·4 per cent. The gas industry, which we are told is a bright, prosperous and flourishing industry, is still required to return only 10·4 per cent. There must surely be some kind of argument somewhere for the difference, but it is hard for those in the electricity supply industry to understand what it is. Would my hon. Friend at least try to explain the reason for the difference when he replies.
Another argument which could be used in support of my thesis that these steep increases were not necessary all at once is to be found in the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the Central Electricity Generating Board's bulk supply tariff, which points out that, in electricity supply, because of the sharp division between generation and distribution, the C.E.G.B. has been able, over some years, to balance its books by pushing some of its costs on to the area boards and, thus, on to the consumer.
The sensible suggestion of the Prices Board—it is a pity that we had to wait for it to suggest it—is that the industry should be taken together and that the C.E.G.B., for which I have the highest technical respect, should understand that it too should make economies. Else it is all too simple for the Generating Board to push the obligation on to the area boards, which naturally, since they have to buy their electricity from the C.E.G.B., can all too easily go into the red and therefore they increase prices instead to the consumer.
If the electricity supply industry and the gas industry—the argument applies to both—were allowed greater flexibility in borrowing policy, they could decide these complicated tariff questions for themselves, and some of the recent steep price increases might have been avoided.
The second issue may be a constant theme of mine, but that does not mean that it is not a good argument. It is about investment in the electricity supply industry. The industry is often treated as a great spending villian because it invests so much capital, but it is bound to do so. Electricity is basic to the whole economy. One cannot run a modern industrial economy without vast quantities of electric power; if our productivity and standard of life is to advance, investment in electrical plant and power facilities generally must also advance.
But I regret that my right hon. Friends in charge of the Ministry since the present Government were elected are still following the bad road which their predecessors followed. That is, they are still allowing investment in electricity supply to be dictated largely by narrow Treasury considerations. We are likely again, in a few years, when the economy


begins to expand, to face a shortage of electrical plant capacity. But, apart from the danger of an actual shortage of capacity in three or so years, because of what I think are the present shortsighted economies, a too narrow margin between electrical maximum possible demand and actual installed capacity tends to inhibit commercial investment, and hampers the industry in building an economic and well-balanced load pattern.
I believe that the intention now is to stabilise on a 17 per cent. margin of installed capacity over possible maximum demand. To most people outside the industry—I am sure, to those in charge of the national finances—this may seem an ample margin, but it does not, of course, allow for emergencies. It particularly does not allow for what can happen all too easily when large power station installations such as the 500 megawatt sets which we are installing now go out of service because of breakdown or enforced maintenance.
It is one thing to have a 17 per cent. margin when using 60 megawatt machines, but when using 500 megawatt turbo alternators it is taking a considerable risk. Most European electricity undertakings—this remark allows for a substantial measure of interconnection, which on the Continent does not go quite as far generally as it does in Britain— work on an average margin of about 20 per cent. Apart from the question of the security of supply, and apart from the occasional dangers which are involved because of the new techniques of generation where much larger machines are used, it does not allow old plant, which is very expensive to run, to be taken out of service. By taking old plant, which is very expensive when run on peak load, out of service electricity can be made cheaper to produce.
The exporting of electrical plant is important to Britain. I do not want to seem to be in any sense biased against the gas industry, but that industry does not export much plant. The electricity industry taken as a whole—manufacturing and supply—does. There is a direct relationship between exports of electrical plant and investment at home. It is doubtful if we can export everything that we were previously using at home. It is generally recognised that there should be at least a ratio of 40:60 between home use and

foreign sales. If we are to export 60 per cent., we should still be installing about 40 per cent. of the total output at home. In two countries whose economies are roughly comparable to ours— West Germany and Japan—the growth rate of electrical plant installed up to 1980, as far as one can obtain figures, is much greater than it is here.
I hope therefore that my right hon. Friend will not take too easily for granted the old financial argument that, when it is desired to cut national investment, we should cut into electricity supply investment on a large scale. I regard this as short-sighted, both from the home expansion point of view and from the point of view of our export trade.
The third issue I want to raise was talked about at some length by my right hon. Friend and by the hon. Lady. I have real doubts about the activity of the gas industry in the matter of natural gas use. The present Ministerial policy appears to be to give the Gas Council as quickly as possible natural gas so that it can be used profitably by the Gas Boards. I take the view that the Gas Council should not be organising the direct marketing of natural gas in the wholesale sense. I would like the system to be that which is used in the rest of Western Europe, namely, a marketing agency. The marketing agency would acquire the gas as it was produced and would resell it to all those who could make use of it, including the Gas Boards.
Such a State marketing agency would be able to hold the balance fairly in the use of natural gas as between all the fuel and power industries. After all. natural gas is a new source of primary energy. Why should it automatically go to the gas industry for them to use it in competition with the other fuel industries just because it happens to be in this form processed by nature? It should be available generally for the use of the economy. Has this sensible proposal been considered seriously in the Ministry? Last year the Labour Party conference carried a resolution to this effect.
Recently I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister if he would tell us the total capital cost of using natural gas on present policy assumptions. He gave me in answer the figure of £400 million. 1 appreciate that he was referring simply to the conversion of domestic appliances.


I have been told that the true total cost is £1,500 million. The Minister gave the figure today as £1,600 million. This is the first time this figure has ever come out in the House, I believe.

Sir G. Nabarro: It has been issued before.

Mr. Palmer: I am glad to hear that. The hon. Gentleman is always well informed. Is a proper return on this capital expenditure certain? Has this question been studied. My right hon. Friend said little about the return on the money. If this enormous expenditure is to be justified, there must be an adequate financial return on it. It probably means, in terms of resources, that the natural gas reserves will be depleted in about 15 to 20 years since the gas will have to be sold to give the return. This means that a larger market must be created very quickly for the gas industry. As the hon. Lady said, this will probably be at the expense of the coal industry. It will be also at the expense of the electricity industry and thus, indirectly, at the expense of the coal industry. It will be at the expense of the oil industry. I am not saying that I shall shed too many tears about that, because the oil companies are mainly in the natural gas industry, anyhow, and can switch from one source of profit to another.
We can understand why the gas industry is now casting a jealous eye on the domestic space heating and cooking load. But should we allow this behaviour? There is such an enormous national investment already, quite properly on the basis of competition, by the electricity industry in this domestic sphere.
I think the right policy would be to use natural gas mainly in industry in bulk. The electricity supply industry can be treated like any other industrial consumer. Let it buy natural gas on a commercial basis and distribute the converted energy. At Hams Hall this is being done at present. That contract was negotiated freely between the local region of the Generating Board and the appropriate organisation on the gas side on a straight commercial basis. It does not necessarily mean the displacement of coal. Pulverised coal and natural gas

can be burned together in the same furnace at the same time. The mix can be varied.
We can explore this question when we debate the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology tomorrow, which deals with the nuclear power industry. I do not think that my right hon. Friend even mentioned nuclear power. What is to happen 15 to 20 years from now when there has been this vast expenditure on gas networks and on the conversion of apparatus? The supply of natural gas then runs out? We should then have the fast breeder reactor available, with electric power in abundance to do all that gas can do. Will we then use scarce foreign currency to import natural gas in bulk from Algeria or elsewhere simply because we have put money into the apparatus? Or shall we discard it as we have mining capacity?
I suggest that the gas industry is being given its head far too much. It is the duty of the Minister to use his statutory powers to co-ordinate these matters more sensibly and I hope that greater thought will be given to the need for co-ordination in view of the vast investment in natural gas and the parallel vast and appropriate investment for the future in nuclear fission. I regret—I appreciate that hon. Gentlemen opposite may not support this view—that from the beginning the State has not taken a greater public holding in natural gas because that would have made it easier for these matters to be adjusted.
There is talk in the electricity supply and gas industries of a new reorganising Measure. I suppose one is due because the 10-year legislative itch has applied certainly to electricity since about 1919. The last Electricity Act came in 1957, so I suppose that we are about ready for another one. If this is to happen, I trust that it will happen quickly because uncertainty and indecision is bad for morale, especially for an industry such as electricity supply, which I know well. It has built up fine teams of men and women who are working well for the benefit of the industry and the country. Their morale is bound to suffer when there is uncertainty about the future of what has hitherto been an expanding industry. Thus, if a decision is to be taken, it should be taken quickly.
I would be out of order today in suggesting the type of decision that might be taken. I would like to see a more flexible organisation for gas and electricity which would make it possible for these industries to evolve according to changing; circumstances without having to seek a new Act of Parliament on each occasion. There must be Parliamentary accountability. I have always favoured the mechanisms which have been established, such as select committees. However, to place industries which must change with changing times in a legislative cycle operating every 10 years, alternating from one Act to another, is no way to run these modern industries. They should make their own decisions, according to the circumstances, about the organisational forms they should take. We need self-adjusting arrangements for the gas and electricity industries which will fit into the second half of the century instead of tying them in a legislative straitjacket they have outgrown.

5.33 p.m.

Colonel C. G. Lancaster: I will not comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) about the electricity industry because the Bill is mostly concerned with the gas industry. Like hon. Members on both sides, I find myself in an invidious position today. We are in the midst of an investigation into the impact of North Sea gas on the power industries. The evidence before us at present is incomplete and if we came to any decisions in this debate we would detract from the objectivity with which we must apply ourselves in writing our final report and submitting it to Parliament. There are, however, certain aspects on which one is entitled to comment, even at this stage. They are of a factual nature and, therefore, not subject to the matters I mentioned in connection with our report.
It is too easily suggested at this stage that we have as yet found natural gas in the North Sea on a scale which will be necessary to take advantage of the large amount of borrowing to which we are asked to agree. One hon. Member seemed to think that a great deal had been found. That is not so to date. If we have found one-third of the existing resources in the Dutch coalfield, that is as far as we can claim. It is to be

hoped—indeed, this may be so—that we shall find other deposits on the Continental Shelf, but they have not been found yet and, therefore, we are in a state of conjecture. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) pointed out, we are being asked to agree to a great deal of borrowing in a situation which has a considerable degree of conjecture attached to it.
The inquiry into North Sea gas is the most complicated investigation in which I have taken part, and I have taken part in every inquiry since the present Select Committee was set up. It makes an impact on so many aspects of our fuel and power industries, as well as on the economy of the country, that it will be an extremely difficult matter on which to reach a clear decision on the right recommendation to put forward.
We all hope that natural gas will be found in abundance, and it is fair to say, on events so far, that from the national point of view the more quickly we exploit it the better, for that will give a faster and better return on the capital that is required. Although that may seem an imprudent policy, I suggest that it is the right one considering that, with the exhaustion of these resources, atomic energy and other sources of power may be available to take its place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Finch-ley was wholly justified in the line she took. We need to be prudent. We cannot hand out monies just on the request of Departments. Departments are entitled to ask for reasonable sums meanwhile, and I believe that the request made by the Minister—for about £300 million a year for the next few years—should not be denied him, because if we are to find this gas we must undoubtedly undertake some heavy expenditure in view of the possibility of the required amount of gas being present.
The physical requirements are expensive and we must adapt ourselves as time goes on. We want to get the main grid system into being and we need storage. Yesterday I went to Canvey Island to see the progress being made in the storage of imported Algerian methane under frozen conditions in the strata. That storage has nothing to do with the storage which will be required for North Sea gas. That comes under a different heading. It is


germane to our discussion only because, on this occasion, Sir Henry Jones, when speaking to the Press—perhaps he was rather more cautious than he might have been because of my presence—about the price to the consumer in the premium market could only claim that it would be less than the price of gas made at present by conventional methods; that is, by carbonisation, which will undoubtedly tend to increase with the rising costs which carbonisation must attract to itself. It is not a very strong claim to make that it will be cheaper than the existing method of producing town gas by carbonisation, but he may have been cautiously wise.
I warn the House, however, that we may be putting our hopes a little too high on the benefits to be attained by the consumer in the premium market when this gas is forthcoming. I think it is wise to give that advice. That there should be a proportion used in the bulk market is evident, if and when it is forthcoming. That will tend to balance the cost in the premium market. I do not think we are entitled to say that none should go into the bulk market any more than we should say that it should all go into the bulk market and none into the premium market.
I am sure that my colleagues on the Select Committee will not resent my saying that we find ourselves in an invidious position and that we cannot be categorical in the views we express. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley has made a good case for the Amendment. It is not that we want to deny the Minister any reasonable amount of money, but it was obvious from his speech that a great deal of this expenditure is to be incurred in a situation which at the moment it still full of uncertainty and doubt. There is no reason why a further Bill should not come before the House if, as we hope, our doubts may be set on one side and natural gas is forthcoming in great quantities from the North Sea; but the idea of 4,000 m.c.f.d. is a long way off.
There will be plenty of time for a further Bill to come before the House and then, if great quantities are forthcoming, I am certain that my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite will be ready to see that the money is available. But we would be imprudent to say now that

we are prepared to provide all that is asked for. I therefore strongly support the Amendment.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: My curiosity has been aroused by the wording of the Amendment and by the attitude of the Opposition to the White Paper on Fuel Policy. Although I enjoyed listening to the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) when she talked about the wording of the White Paper, it was a little of a surprise to my hon. Friends and I, because we were under the impression that the Opposition was more enthusiastic about the terms of the White Paper than those of us on this side of the House. If there has been a change of 'heart among hon. Members opposite, some of my hon. Friends and I may perhaps believe that there is still some hope.
We made it clear that we found the White Paper on fuel not acceptable. We advanced the argument, but received little sympathy, that the White Paper was inconclusive and did not represent a fuel policy because it left so many gaps and that we as miners could not accept it. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), I cannot see that this debate merits an Amendment to the Motion. There may be a good argument that we should have a debate ranging over the whole question of fuels.
It is a pleasure not to be debating this subject late at night. This is the first time I have taken part in a debate on this subject early in the day. In the last four or five debates on fuel I have spoken at seven or eight o'clock in the morning.
I do not see any Scottish hon. Members present—

Sir G. Nabarro: Or Scottish Ministers.

Mr. Eadie: I am glad to see that one hon. Member from Scotland has now arrived. Reference has been made to the monumental and epoch-making speech of the Leader of the Opposition. The Opposition should note that, in view of the activities of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, the Amendment will not endear hon. Members opposite to the Scottish people. When they read the document and the Amendment it will


take the sting out of that so-called very important speech.
There is an element of hypocrisy about the Opposition putting forward this Amendment. I say this in the nicest possible way, because the hon. Lady said such nice things about my right hon. Friend. We always like listening to her because, whether we agree with her or not, she tries to argue a case and she is a very pleasant personality, but she said some things which we could not accept. When she referred to vast sums of money being written off in the power industry, perhaps her memory was a little at fault.
I always suspect when hon. Members opposite talk about capital being written off that they are referring to capital written off in the mining industry. If the mining industry had been treated in the way which some hon. Members wanted it to be treated on the basis of profitability, there would probably be about £2,000 million additionally in the finances of the National Coal Board. It was hon. Members opposite who in the early days, particularly up to 1956, treated the mining industry as a service industry and the question of profitability never entered into it. Coal as a fuel was sold to private industry below cost of production.
I think I am entitled to remind the hon. Lady, who talked about wrong investment, that it was her party which was responsible for embarking on the gigantic magnox system in relation to nuclear power. That was a terrible mistake, and it ill behoves hon. Members opposite to talk about writing off vast capital sums as if they can escape responsibility. It may be that hon. Members on both sides of the House made mistakes, but hon. Members opposite were in power longer than we were.
Time and time again in debates on power my hon. Friends and I have spoken about the gas industry and gas prices. I have incurred the wrath of various Ministers. I have said at Question Time and in speeches over the past 18 months that I have always believed that gas was over-sold. There have been vast advertisements about the bonanza of North Sea gas. It was said that this great bonanza would mean a substantial reduction in prices for the housewife and the consumer. The hon. Lady was quite right to say that it is time it was said

from this House that "there ain't going to be a great bonanza" for the consumers of this country.
The consumers have been duped on this. They have been putting in gas appliances wholesale because of the mass advertising, in the hope and so-called knowledge that gas would be very much cheaper. I hope that at least from this debate, arising largely from what the hon. Lady said and what some of my hon. Friends will say, we shall be able to let the people know what will happen about gas prices.
There are very serious repercussions. Local authorities, largely because of the mythology of cheaper gas prices, have been concentrating more and more on gas in their housing programmes. I receive quite a lot of mail, probably as much as any other hon. Member, sometimes running into 100 letters a week. I have been discovering from my mail that old age pensioners are having great difficulty in meeting heating costs where they have gas space-heated houses. I believe that the local authorities acted in good faith, believing that installing gas would give the consumer some advantage. I wonder whether the fact that gas is to be used has influenced Government Departments when giving their approval to certain housing designs. If it has, it is time somebody was told that gas will not be all that helpful on the question of costs. There is a need to have an overall look at the whole question of fuel and its costs.
North Sea gas is a new-found source of energy that we should exploit. It is a source of wealth to the country, but for a long time I have wondered whether we may be destroying the chemical industry for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I am not sure that we are using North Sea gas properly and wisely. It seems to me nonsensical that in using this new-found wealth we should be writing off vast sums of capital spent on other industries, such as the mining industry, and creating unemployment problems. If the debate serves no other purpose than to highlight this, it will have performed a useful function.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) adds one more voice to the hon. Members who have


not been at all welcoming to the Bill. I think that it is the first borrowing powers Bill to be opposed on a reasoned Amendment, and therefore, the Government have real cause to think deeply about whether they are not making a mistake in bringing it forward at this time.
The gas industry is asking for the biggest draft of capital it has ever had this year. It is bigger than that for which the electricity industry is asking. That in itself is something we should look at. How do we know whether this amount of investment is correct? We have no means of telling by judging the amounts of investment in relation to market forces. We cannot say that demand is so much because we do not know what it is, and there is no means of determining the correct pricing structure to reflect demand.
Therefore, the Government must make arbitrary decisions, and they have decided that it will be 15 per cent. by 1975 of the national fuel take. So it seems to me that it is vitally important in assessing this huge amount of investment to be quite certain that the gas industry is selling its products at the correct price.
In a nationalised industry it is very difficult to discover what the correct prices should be. The White Paper, Cmnd. 3437, sets out how to determine prices. The first statement I came across was
… the principle that nationalised industries' revenue should normally cover their accounting costs in full—including the service of capital and appropriate provision for its replacement.
Judging the gas industry's proposals by that criterion, we find that the entire cost of conversion is being capitalised in this tranche of borrowing, £276 million. Why should the cost of conversion be a capital charge? It may well be argued that it should be. But it seems to me that it is something which the consumers should pay for, or at least pay the greater share. When one instals a telephone the cost is not met from the G.P.O.'s capital. One pays the cost of installing it. On the other hand, when one has a new gas installation it is to be provided free and paid for out of taxpayer's capital.
A vast amount of early obsolescence is to take place in the existing gas-making

plant, which will be written off long before its life has come to an end. This is another large capital item which must be reflected in prices.
Next, we read that the interest on all the heavy capital expenditure on constructing the network of pipes will be capitalised. This means that the true costs of installing the network will not be charged to expenses.
Depreciation of this equipment is to be based not on a straight line method, not on a historic costs method and not even on a replacement costs method. A new method of depreciation is invented, based on the throughput of North Sea gas. Nothing will be paid out in depreciation until the gas starts to flow, and then only as the build-up starts to take place. Perhaps 10 years hence this new equipment will be depreciated. Here is another clever financial way of concealing the true costs of this vast expenditure on North Sea gas.
The White Paper also says:
Two-part and differential pricing systems are also used to improve financial results without distorting the allocation of resources when there are important elements in costs which cannot easily be allocated to specific services or products …
That is very sensible. It says that one tries to keep the price as near as possible to what a service costs. Have we done this with North Sea gas? For instance, will it be as expensive to buy North Sea gas in Norfolk or in the East Riding as it will be in South Wales, or on the west coast of England? It must cost more to take the gas across, because pipelines have to be laid. I would like to know whether or not the extra cost will be charged. If this is to be evened out, it will mean that some consumers will have to pay more than they should and some will have to pay less than they should. In fact, a distortion is set up in the economic system, inducing more investment in pipelines and plant on the west coast than would otherwise have taken place; this is another part of the reason for this vast investment.
What about the premium market consumers? What about power stations, factories, and steel works which will consume vast quantities of the gas? Will they be charged less per therm than domestic consumers, or not? It is clearly cheaper to supply a large industrial consumer than


domestic consumers. One must know what the answer to that question is.
The next item on pricing concerns the price which will be paid to the producers of North Sea gas. One contract has recently been fixed at 2·87d. per therm, If this price is too low it will have a cumulative, lowering effect on the price at which North Sea gas is retailed and keep the price of gas too low throughout. It will also have the effect of tending to choke off further exploration because the profits on the exploration will be too low, while, at the same time stimulating too great a demand by having a very low price for the gas.
I do not know whether this price is right or wrong, but the dangers in the Gas Council using its monopoly bargaining position to drive the price of gas down too low are immense. Not only will the supply be cut off by making it uneconomical to look for new gas but demand will be increased, because the gas will be so cheap that everybody will want to consume it, and that in its turn will bring a huge further investment in its train.

Mr. Lubbock: Is not the hon. Gentleman disagreeing with his hon. Friend on the Front Bench who said that there would not be any price reductions arising from natural gas?

Mr. Ridley: I am not at all disagreeing. I thought she made an absolutely admirable speech. I am trying to demonstrate that what is happening is that the gas industry is trying, by any means at its disposal, to get its prices down so that it can become more competitive. The result is that the price is far lower than it should be. Of course my hon. Friend is right. There may still not be much reduction in gas prices despite the fiddling about with depreciation and interest and the various other factors which I have mentioned. And they are leading to such a great demand that it will result in our having to provide this enormous sum of capital; it is subsidising natural gas to a very large extent.
The gas industry is not the only industry which is doing this. The nuclear power industry, the coal industry and the electricity industry have all done it. There is enormous competition between the different forms of fuel, which results in the

pouring out of the taxpayers' money and does not make any sense at all.
How will the Government control this enormous expenditure? The Government have laid down in their White Paper two forms of control for nationalised industries. One is to raise the test discount rate. They say that if the capital investment of the nationalised industry gets out of hand the remedy must be to raise the test discount rate. Yet the Government have no plans for doing so. The Minister made it quite clear the other day that he is not intending to do this. That is clearly something which will not be done. The second form of control stems from self-financing. The gas industry hitherto has been running at about 30 percent. self-financing, and the forecast for the next five years is that it will again be 30 percent. self-financing. The figure which is given in the gas booklet indicates that it will be 30 percent. self-financing in the future. In a Committee stage debate on the National Loan Fund Bill the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that he thought that 30 percent. was inadequate, and yet we are told that the gas industry will only have to find 30 percent. of its new money in the future.
The Government's main weapon to increase the self-financing ratio is the operation of the financial target. We learn with astonishment that the financial target for the gas industry has not been fixed. This enormous investment is taking place in a situation where there is no fixed financial target for the gas industry. This is of such fundamental importance that I must labour the point for one moment. If the target is fixed at 8 per cent., 10 per cent., or whatever percentage it is, this in its turn will affect the prices which the industry has to charge, which in turn will affect the amount of investment which is sucked in. It is foolish to present the House with a bill for £1,200 million without telling the House as a result of what rate of target this has been calculated. The first part of the equation is the rate of target, working from that to the prices which would result, and working from that to the amount of the investment. It is quite clear to me that the price of North Sea gas has not only not been published, but is not known, and has not been taken into account.
The Gas Council has used every conceivable means to reduce the price at which it can sell gas; by bludgeoning the oil companies, by writing off its depreciation 10 years hence, by failing to cover costs which should properly be covered in estimates and by getting all this done before the financial target has been fixed. The result is, of course, this huge capital sum which we are asked to find.
Nobody would deny to the Gas Council the funds to develop North Sea gas, but the ultimate decision here is the speed at which gas is to be brought into the market. It can be brought in so that it is used up over 100 years, or so that it is used up over 10 years or anything in between. This is a decision which only the Government can take. The Government are supplying the capital, the Government own the industry and the Government alone can decide. In these circumstances, I cannot understand why the Government appear to be setting all the financial controls so that the gas is brought on to the market and used up with the greatest possible speed. Think of the damage that this will do to the existing fuel industries, coal, oil and electricity. Think of the waste of the existing gas-making plants based on oil and coal feed stocks. We have what seems to me to be a situation of no control at all.
I would like to end by saying what are the consequences of this rash, headlong scramble for cheap State capital which is being indulged in by all the nationalised industries.
The Post Office wants £2,000 million in the next few years, the Gas Council wants £2,400 million altogether, and electricity will have its share. We know the enormous sums of money which are being brought forward. As the hon. Member for Finchley said, this is beginning to have a serious effect on the national finances. For many years we have assumed that the money which we voted so happily for borrowing powers Bills for nationalised industries is in fact borrowed by the Government on the market, but it is not. I have figures here which show that over the last eight years the Government by all their borrowing efforts on the market have only raised £870 million net, whereas they have lent £7,453 million.

They have applied taxation surpluses, which amount to £3,153 million. That leaves uncovered a total for the last eight years of £3,400 million. This is uncovered by borrowings at home, by taxation or by any conceivable means of financing. It has been either borrowed from abroad or printed.
The need now is not only to look at the Government's current expenditure on revenue account but to supervise their capital programmes as if they were every bit as important as prescription charges or any other item of revenue. It is totally irresponsible to have tremendous battles over £5 million here or £20 million there, and then allow sums of money like that proposed at present to go through unchallenged.
I believe that the Gas Council has based its plans on too rosy a prospectus and too fast a rate of development. The least that we in this House can do, which is all that we are asking in the Amendment, is to ensure that it comes back very much sooner asking us to give it another tranche of capital against a progress report. At that time, I hope that all the factors dealing with prices, the target, the rate of return and the rate at which gas reserves are being used up will be made known. Without that knowledge, it is impossible to make a proper assessment of the proposition. To my mind, it is certainly one about which the House should be very careful before giving its agreement.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire: I want to echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who said what a great pleasure it was to be debating some part of our fuel policy on the day shift. On this occasion, we are ready on the afternoon shift. It is a pleasant change from the last occasion on which we discussed the coal industry, which we did in the early hours of the morning in a debate initiated by an Opposition Member on the Consolidated Fund Bill dealing with all aspects of the White Paper. It is very pleasant to be doing this on the afternoon shift.
I need hardly remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker's and Mr. Deputy Speaker's brains were just as alert on that occasion in the small hours of the morning as they are in the day, and they


were quick to bring hon. Members to order and remind them of the need for short speeches. Without any reminder, I intend to comply with their unuttered request today.
The hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) usually makes the most charming speeches and, in addition, they are always very able and well documented. She does her homework, and her remarks are always worthy of attention. In her speech today, she referred to the lack of co-ordination of fuel policy. I think that the present policy could be summed up by saying that each section of the gas, electricity and coal industries is, most of the time, engaged in flogging it own briefs. That is what happens and the effect of the resulting lack of coordination is a demonstrable and shocking waste of public money.
The Opposition Amendment refers to the fact that we have not debated the White Paper in its entirety. However, hon. Members will recall that, on the Thursday preceding devaluation, it was announced that we should be debating the White Paper on one day during the following week and would take the money Bill which flowed from the consequences of the Government's fuel policy on the following day. In the end, what happened was that we condensed the debate into one day and had about 1½ hours on it. But it is not quite true that we have never debated the White Paper. What he have done is to debate it piecemeal when borrowing powers Bills and Orders have come before us.
Most hon. Members accept, as the Amendment says, that there is a great need all the time to scrutinise public expenditure carefully. I am sure that no one would disagree with that proposition.
I have said already that we have debated the White Paper piecemeal, and I have found it to be a most frustrating experience. Although one gets the pleasure of being able to point out the contradictions and inconsistencies in the White Paper, whenever we debate a borrowing powers Bill or Order, as a miner's Member of Parliament, I am usually reminded that the real sufferer from this lack of co-ordination amongst the elements of our fuel energy distributors and producers is the mining industry. I believe that that will be demonstrated more and more.
Like the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster), I am a member of the Nationalised Industries Committee, and I agree with him when he says that members of the Committee should guard against making statements which indicate a closed mind on the impact of natural gas on the economy. If one commits oneself to a certain line of thought, one cannot be said to be objective.
Even observing that wise advice, it must be said that members of the Select Committee have had presented to them by the various nationalised bodies papers which to my mind have created considerable doubt about the optimistic forecasts which have been made for the absorption of natural gas into the economy. We are left with the impression that tremendous problems will be created and that the forecasts of the Gas Council have been outrageously optimistic.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian said that the public has been "conned" about cheap natural gas. That is undoubtedly true. We all remember how the first forecasts of the price of natural gas produced headlines in the London evening newspapers predicting slashing reductions by the early 'seventies. We now know that that is not to be the case and that, instead, there have been massive increases.
As a miners' Member of Parliament, I am strengthened by those optimistic forecasts in my belief that what we need is a completely co-ordinated fuel policy which will have as its objective the best possible utilisation of natural resources, including natural gas, although some of the arguments advanced about it resulting in a saving in foreign currencies are found to be a little specious when they are examined A good deal of the capital invested in natural gas comes from abroad, unlike the investment in our coal industry in which the capital has been invested already and, if we had a wise policy, we could recoup.
This borrowing powers Bill demonstrates more than anything the futility of making outrageously optimistic forecasts and the need for a proper co-ordinated fuel policy which will allocate a proper place to every industry within these sectors. The Government should, for instance, have asked the mining industry


—which will be affected by the advent of natural gas—" How much coal can you supply at this indicated price?" It is suggested that the National Coal Board could not deliver the goods but I say that this would not be catastrophic because substitutes for coal are easily available for power stations. But when other industries do not fulfil their optimistic forecasts, their fuel cannot be replaced, in nuclear power stations, for instance, by cheap coal. The result of the present policy for fuel is catastrophic for the coal industry.
This Bill and most of the debates about fuel so far have indicated the need for a properly planned and co-ordinated fuel policy in place of the present system, in which every Department flogs its own brief and in which the real sufferer is the industry in which I have been proud to work. That industry will not suffer so badly if we have a proper fuel policy.

6.21 p.m.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: The sums contained in this Bill are astronomical. The borrowing of the gas industry up to 31st March last was £1,063 million. Since then, of course, further sums have been committed. The statutory limit on the borrowing powers of the industry is at present £1,200 million. The Minister has explained that the Bill will carry the limit of borrowing powers to £1,600 million and, subject to Statutory Instrument thereafter by easy stages, cruising along—I suppose he meant to imitate the Chancellor of the Exchequer's "easy as she goes"—up to £2,400 million.
The right hon. Gentleman made his speech, listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and left the Chamber. He has heard no more of the debate. It will be interesting to see whether he returns to hear any part of my speech. I doubt whether he will. I castigate him publicly for his poor manners, coupled with the fact that he refused to give way to me in the middle of his speech when I wanted to ask him a perfectly reasonable and innocent question having regard to the astronomical sums of money entailed in the Bill.
I wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he considers that it is appropriate, in contemporary circumstances, to

run for the next two years—that is, raising the limit of the borrowing powers from £1,200 million to £1,600 million— without resort to Parliamentary scrutiny. What I should require is scrutiny after one year. I wanted him to deal with that in his speech. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary may be authorised to deal with it when he replies to the debate. But, as £200 million is involved, it is slightly more than the brief of a Parliamentary Secretary. It might be considered the brief of the Minister responsible.
However, this again emphasises the contempt of senior Ministers for the genuine anxiety of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself about the pace and size of the expenditure of public funds. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, in her characteristically charming fashion, talked, I thought a little casually, of the taxpayers' interests. Let us be perfectly certain about this. No part of the money under this Bill is being obtained from elsewhere than the taxpayers' pockets.

Mr. Ridley: And abroad.

Sir G. Nabarro: No part of it is being obtained by resort to traditional channels of finance in this country. There might be some question of borrowing abroad, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ciren-cester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) prompts me—and I am grateful to him —but all the money which is borrowed in the United Kingdom will come from the taxpayers and the surpluses budgeted for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer once a year. It is below the line expenditure. Yet the Minister talks casually of not having to resort to Parliamentary scrutiny for two years, whereas I require one year.
Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman included in his peroration a pained expression of surprise that the Opposition were moving a qualified and reasoned Amendment against the Bill, he could not have known of my forthcoming statement. I wish he were here to listen to it. It is that, in the next few days, I shall move to reduce the £1,600 million in the Bill to £1,400 million and, in Committee, a long debate will ensue. There is no question of catching Mr. Speaker's eye in Committee. I shall speak half a dozen times—and I shall refer to the coal industry as well.
The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) referred to the midnight debate on the coal industry. I initiated it. It was not on the Consolidated Fund but on the Coal Industry Act, 1967, because the only opportunity we get these days, with the indigestion of Government business and having regard to the huge sums of money invested in the nationalised industries and the chronic strain on the country's financial resources, is when I move Amendments to borrowing powers Bills.

Mr. David Webster: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, when he is doing what he proposes, he should be careful to ensure that he is not trimmed by the Guillotine?

Sir G. Nabarro: It might be, but I hope not. These things have happened before and will happen again. I think that, during the Committee stage of the Bill, my hon. Friends might consider joining me in demanding a one-year scrutiny of the borrowing powers for the gas industry.
My second point is simply this: I wrote to the leaders of my party a few days ago, saying that the Tory Party as a matter of principle, never votes against the borrowing powers of nationalised industries on Second Reading. It has always taken the view that the nationalised industries have to be financed and that it is therefore appropriate periodically to have a borrowing powers Bill, since these industries must not be denied funds. I told them that, if they did not table a reasoned and qualified Amendment, I would, even if I were a minority of one, divide the House at 10 o'clock tonight.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman could not divide the House if he were a minority of one.

Sir G. Nabarro: I can and will divide the House even if I am a minority of one.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman must have tellers.

Sir G. Nabarro: I always have tellers. There are always financial purists who will come with me on Measures of this kind because, like me, they are appalled that, at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer argues that he cannot afford £500,000 to abate, for example, the Purchase Tax on greetings cards, or

£4 million to reduce the marginal top level of taxation on incomes from 18s. 3d. in the £ to 15s. in order to give financial incentives to the nation's best brains. Yet he comes to the House and casually demands, through, his instrument and tool, the Minister of Power, £400 million for North Sea gas, a major part of which is not yet justified.
I sneered at the Chancellor on 14th May. It was a calculated sneer, always appropriate when there is humbug and hypocrisy from the Treasury Bench. I said:
Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it would be unpatriotic to observe that many of us think that the balance of payments position is steadily deteriorating and not improving?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1968; Vol. 764, c. 1020.]
The critical financial condition of our country is due, in the main, to gross over-expenditure on domestic financial needs. The nationalised industries have heavy responsibility to bear in this important regard. "Squandermania" is my single word for it. I will justify to the House why I am using these stern terms about the proposed increase in borrowing powers, from £1,200 million to £1,600 million.
About 80 per cent. of this money is required for capital equipment by the gas industry for the purpose of financing the intake of North Sea gas. It is said that 2,000 million cubic feet per diem is required by 1971 and that 4,000 million cubic feet per diem is required by 1975. The financial sinews to generate that rate of introduction of natural gas from subterranean North Sea sources into this country are those delineated in the Bill—so says the Gas Council. How much of this gas has been discovered so far? Neither the Minister nor my hon. Friend—no speaker in this debate—has yet said how much of this gas out of the 4,000 million cubic feet estimated to be brought in in 1975 has so far been discovered, contracted for and the price agreed.

Mr. Lubbock: Sir Henry Jones has.

Sir G. Nabarro: He has not. I can give the figure now, obtained from private sources. The only agreement as to price has been made in the Philips agreement at 2·87 pence per therm. That covers 325,000 cubic feet per diem.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will address the Chair.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am, Sir. I am gyrating—that is my trouble. I get stiff if I look straight in front of me all the time. The figure of 325,000 cubic feet per diem is the sole subject of price agreement to date. That is, 325,000 out of 4,000 million cubic feet per diem. If the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is as good at arithmetic as I think he is, and he puts 325,000 cubic feet per diem over 4,000 million cubic feet per diem, he will find that the first figure is about 8 per cent. of the second figure—roughly one-twelfth.
What has so far been negotiated is a contract price for one-twelfth of the total of the North Sea subterranean gas which we propose to bring in by 1975. We are now intending to legislate to lend the Gas Board all the money it requires to finance the position as it will exist in 1975, notwithstanding that a price contract has been made for only one-twelfth of the total. Will the price contract be made for the other eleven-twelfths? I doubt it. There were a large number of oil companies negotiating with the Gas Council as to the price for North Sea gas.
We all know the dismal course of these negotiations. For almost three years I have been asking Parliamentary Questions about it. Only one agreement has so far been made and that is in respect of only 8 per cent. of the need six years ahead. So low is the price that the other oil companies are now scared off. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury touched on this matter. He said, "Yes, the price is sufficient for existing operations, but what the oil companies have to have is a price that not only covers existing operations, but that also covers the very heavy cost of exploration for future development in order to cover the remaining eleven-twelfths of the requirement by 1975."
I am not prepared to vote money forward for a period of six years on that scale, in view of the huge demands made on capital in this country—notably upon public capital—when what we ought to do is to peer one year ahead only, vote £200 million of additional borrowing powers and review the position one year hence to ascertain then whether

additional contracts have been made with the other oil companies on a mutually acceptable basis. They may well not have been made 12 months from now. I shall therefore, in Committee, seek to reduce the figure in the Bill of £1,600 million to £1,400 million, which will seem to me a reasonable cumulative figure to last until mid-1969.
Before leaving the subject of the price of North Sea gas I would say that the figure of 2·87 pence per therm is un-realistically low and will scare off future exploitation. The oil companies are already threatening to decamp elsewhere, in Europe and North America, where they can obtain a better return on the huge sums of capital involved in operating their large drilling rigs. We should be unwise to cast away the first piece of mineral luck we have had in this country for many years.
I want to turn for a moment to the speech of the hon. Member for Ince. He talked about the impact on the coalmining industry. If this Bill goes through it will put a large additional number of coal miners out of work.

Mr. Freeson: Mr. Freeson indicated dissent.

Sir G. Nabarro: I see the Parliamentary Secretary nodding his head in dissent. I will give him the figures. I never make statements of that kind without having all the figures in my armoury, available to support me.
In 1966–67 the gas industry used 16 million tons of coal. In 1967–68 the industry will be using 13 million tons of coal. By 1975, if the whole of the gas industry rests, as the White Paper says it will rest, on natural gas from the North Sea and elsewhere—because there are finds under the land, in Yorkshire—then no coal will be used, and therefore the whole of the 16 million tons used in 1966–67, the 13 million tons used in 1967–68 will not be required. How can that do anything other than to put coal miners out of work? They may find alternative employment but they will not be employed as coal miners.

Mr. McGuire: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the two things. This process of not using coal in the carbonisation plants would have gone on irrespective of the introduction of natural gas. That is why I said that the impact of natural


gas would only be felt by the Coal Board from 1971–72 onwards. The process of not using coal for carbonisation had already been accelerated and was gaining ground fast. Natural gas has nothing to do with the forecast contained in the White Paper.

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is not basing his argument on facts. If one does not use natural gas for providing gas suppliers and does not use gas from coal carbonisation, that is, for manufacturing town gas, the only alternative is gas from oil and from methane.
There are only those three supplies, other than water gas which is relatively very small. But the fact is that gas from oil consumed 3·5 million tons of oil in 1966–67 and 4·7 million tons of oil in 1966–68, compared with 16 million tons of coal in the first of those years and 13 million tons in the second of those years; and were it not for natural gas the gas industry would undoubtedly have used slightly more oil. It would also have used, I suppose, slightly more methane. I remember when the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends opposed the introduction of methane by all the means at their disposal. But, very largely, the gas industry would carbonise coal had it not been for natural gas, and they would have used 8 million, 10 million or 12 million tons of coal and that market would have gone on for a long time. As it is, with natural gas supplying the entire field by 1975, there will be no further coal supplies required.
I believe, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince and all his colleagues who are said to represent the mining lobby here may as well make up their mind that coal supplied for the gas industry will be entirely out within six years from now.

Mr. McGuire: Not because of this.

Sir G. Nabarro: Largely because of this.
This is a financial Bill. I shall reserve my detailed arguments in connection with North Sea gas for the Committee stage. I am sorry the Minister has not returned at any stage during my speech. [An HON. MEMBER: "Wise man."]. The hon. Gentleman may consider it wise for his Ministerial colleagues to treat the

Opposition in this cavalier fashion but at least I am informed on fuel and power matters—at least as well informed as the hon. Gentleman and I expect to be listened to by somebody of rather greater importance than the Parliamentary Secretary. That is, of course, in deference to you, Mr. Speaker. But I shall canvass these arguments in greater depth and greater detail when we come to the Committee stage.
I want to add a further word about foreign borrowing. What a disgraceful state of affairs for one of the sacred cows of the Labour Party, the nationalised gas industry—for it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) who nationalised coal, gas and electricity which were to be the great towers, the visual evidence of a Socialist Britain, the commanding heights of the economy, with British money, British capital resting on the accumulation of British savings which were to promote dynamic industries in the 20th and 21st centuries; and here is the Labour Party bringing to the House of Commons a Bill to cause one of their nationalised fuel industries to borrow money from the gnomes of Zurich whom they despise.
What are they using as a precedent? They say, "But the nationalised Air Corporations have authority to borrow money abroad". I would remind you, Sir, that the national Air Corporations are in international competition with scores of foreign airlines. They earn large sums in foreign exchange. But here is an indigenous British industry not selling £1-worth of its products abroad unless it exports occasionally a couple of bottles of aspirin, a little naphtha, some tar or some other by-product of a gas works. It makes no contribution to the export trade whatever. It has this huge call on capital and it now proposes to borrow it abroad. That represents a direct drain on our balance of payments as to capital and as to repayment, a direct drain; and it puts the gas industry in mortgage to the gnomes of Zurich, because the foreigner will require guarantees. He is not going to put money into the Gas Council. Do not believe it! He does not like the Gas Council very much, if he has ever heard of it at all. It is nothing to laugh at. The foreigner does not like the Gas Council but in any event the Gas Council could not borrow this money without a Bank of England


guarantee, without a Treasury guarantee for the loans.
I regard this as a wholly misguided exercise. What the Treasury ought to be doing is stimulating personal savings in this country, which as you know well, Mr. Speaker, are the proper base for capital accumulation and public finance —not going overseas for money and mortgaging British industry to the foreigner. There are three Clauses in this Bill dealing with this. In terms of verbiage it is most of the Bill. These are Clauses 2, 3 and 4. Within a few days there will be on the Order Paper of the House my Motion to delete all three Clauses. I shall seek to reduce the money under Clause 1 and to remove Clauses 2, 3 and 4. I might let Clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8 through, those being relatively inoccuous; and my party will come with me, I feel confident.

Mr. J. McCann (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): A nice change.

Sir G. Nabarro: Did somebody say "A nice change"? We have heard a word from a Whip. No, not a nice change. I lead my party for if I had set down a reasoned Amendment to deal with it it would have gone down in my name and my party would have voted with me.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Hear, hear.

Sir G. Nabarro: Certainly, I would have had the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor).

Mr. J. T Price: The tail wagging the dog

Sir G. Nabarro: It may be the tail wagging the dog, but what a tail! Look at it! I am always delighted that my party comes with me and eventually recognises the wisdom of my ways. I support the reasoned Amendment. I shall walk briskly through the Lobby tonight glad of heart that I am doing the right thing and that I am rejecting utterly the spurious and slightly ridiculous appeal of the Minister who in the peroration of his speech thought it appropriate to try to appeal to me not to vote on the reasoned Amendment to his Bill.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: The House is well aware that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) enjoys the use of flamboyant and extravagant language. The House makes due allowance for his exaggerated statements. We are often entertained by him, but we are rarely enlightened by what he says. In the few minutes during which I wish to detain the House, I want to put forward a few ideas of my own in perhaps more temperate language. If ever the House were televised, which I should deplore, I should have no wish to compete with the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South as a substitute for "Coronation Street".
This is an important debate and I do not approach it in any frivolous fashion. Any debate which deals with the granting of borrowing powers of £1,200 million is important. I listened with great interest and close attention to the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). My right hon. Friend delivered his Departmental brief with his usual Pickwickian charm The hon. Lady responded in similar terms, but the use of the word "Pickwickian" would be a misnomer in her case. I should have to use another synonym of one of Dickens's characters, but I hesitate to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I do not wish to be critical. I want to approach the debate in a non-polemical way. However, the hon. Lady made some telling criticisms which we must answer.
I am not sure that on these occasions, when we are dealing with a comparatively narrow Bill consisting of five pages which involves the issue of Parliamentary authority for vast borrowing of public money, we can resist the temptation to widen the scope of the debate to a general debate on fuel policy. This may be a good thing. It would be out of order at any other stage of the Bill.
The hon. Lady drew attention to a number of things which have been engaging our attention in the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, of which I am a member. Since we are dealing with the Bill in the absence of the report which will ultimately emerge from our deliberations, I am not sure


that we are doing so in the right context. I should have preferred, if it had been consistent with Parliamentary arrangements, that the Bill could have followed the issue of the valuable report which we hope to submit to the House in the next few months. Nevertheless, I make no complaint.
I notice that my right hon. Friend the Minister has returned to the Chamber, and that his presence is being noted with great approval by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South just leaving us. I was certain that when I made that remark he would leave the Chamber. Now he is returning. He is quite able to "deliver the goods" and to take what comes from this side of the House because he is a good Parliamentarian. I hope that I am in order, Mr. Speaker, and that you are not getting apprehensive about anything I am saying.
I want to return to the main issue which concerns some of us in the light of the Bill and the arguments advanced by the Minister in supporting it. First, I wish to reply to what was said so eloquently and charmingly by the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley. We are not dealing with a vote of supply for £1,200 million. We are merely dealing with borrowing powers which extend the existing borrowing powers of the Gas Council by £400 million in the first place and a further £800 million at a subsequent date, subject always to the Minister's approval. Therefore, it is not correct for the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South to say that there is no Parliamentary control. There certainly is, because when this money is deployed and granted in various instalments for the development of North Sea gas and the purposes of the Gas Council it is done under strict Parliamentary control as it must be submitted in a vote of Supply.

Mr. Ray Mawby: Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes) indicated dissent.

Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman must be remarkably ignorant of the procedure of this House if he thinks that any Minister can get money below the line unless he has a vote of Supply. The hon. Lady, who is well versed in these matters, is better informed than the hon. Gentleman.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Mr. Price: Certainly.

Sir G. Nabarro: I must be very careful in asking for consent to an intervention. It is perfectly true that the money is covered by a vote of Supply at the time of the Budget annually, but there is no opportunity to debate it, as we know to our cost year after year, and the arrogance of Ministers in refusing us these opportunities is a cause for real concern.

Mr. Price: That may be the hon. Gentleman's view. I should be out of order if I allowed myself to be deflected into a debate on Parliamentary procedure. But since the hon. Gentleman may think, in the absence of a reply, that I am unable to answer his question, let me remind him that when votes of Supply are under discussion they are discussed, as a rule, on Opposition days and that the votes chosen are a matter of consultation between the Front Benches through the usual channels. It is open to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to have any vote discussed on a Supply day, which is an Opposition day. That disposes of that.

Mr. Peter Emery: Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton) rose—

Mr. Price: Just a moment. I shall be on my feet longer than I wish if I am subjected to too many interruptions. I do not wish to be discourteous to anybody.
I listened to the Minister's good natured speech and the brief prepared so meticulously in his Department. But, as I listened to him, I got the impression that if the backroom boys of the gas industry or the boffins or the people who decide the policy and programme of the gas industry are as successful in selling their product in future years as they were in selling hook, line and sinker their ideas to him, they will be very successful indeed. I say that with a sense of responsibility. It is not always desirable that the Minister should swallow the departmental interests of any industry or nationalised industry, however important it is, because obviously they are dealing with their own function in society. They are not concerned with the repercussions of their activities on the other nationalised industries or sectors of other industrial operations, including private industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) used the phrase "flogging their own brief". Those of us with any experience of the House are familiar with low pressure groups can flog their own brief. They do it very successfully, and unless Ministers are extremely sceptical and alert about the weight of evidence submitted to them in support of ideas, they can be, and often are, "taken for a ride".
I am not a miners' representative in this House, although I represent part of the County Palatine of Lancashire where there is a great mining tradition. I am not making a constituency speech. However, some of my hon. Friends, who have a more direct interest in the coal-mining industry, have for years pleaded for a proper Government policy dealing with the nationalised industries and our fuel policy. We have never got it. We are complaining today that this is a further piece of evidence that we are not likely to get it. Whatever this country's political leadership might be when we get down to considering how our natural resources shall be applied and our reliance on other countries to supply raw materials, the better pleased I shall be. I see no evidence of this happening, because we have the bill submitted by the Gas Council being met.
I have listened to all kinds of expert opinion on these matters in other connections, as have other right hon. and hon. Members. When we look at the evidence on which these massive projections about the likely demand for a particular product are made—gas, in this instance—and the capital needed to finance its distribution, there is little to fortify us in any firm conviction that the demand is reasonable.
The hon. Member for Finchley addressed us at considerable length. She spoke of the uncertainty which existed about the known reserves of gas and how long they will last. The best estimate I have heard from any reliable sources on present geological discoveries is that it cannot be said with certainty that they will last for more than 15 years. The engineers hope that further exploration will reveal further treasures. This is the atmosphere in which geologists, particularly oil men and gas men, always work.
If one goes to an oil rig in the Middle East, as I have, one will find an oil rig man from Texas on his rig at 6 o'clock in the morning, before the sun gets high. He will probably say, "If you come down to my rig in two hours I shall have something interesting to show you." He has probably been drilling down to 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 ft., or even greater depths, for the past three months and brought up only muck and slurry. However, he is always hoping that the next hour or the next week he will strike oil. No one can say with certainty.
It appals me to hear people being polemical: condemning something because it is nationalised, but praising it if it is private enterprise. This kind of talk does not mean anything to me. If there has to be large-scale enterprise it must be a mixture of both public and private activity. Drilling for gas in the North Sea is carried out mainly by private enterprise oil companies which have the know-how and expertise to tackle the job. They do not know whether their investment will pay off. They invest hundreds of millions of pounds—maybe thousands of millions of pounds—in the hope that they will strike gas or oil and make a rich return to their shareholders. The hon. Member for Finchley did not say that such companies were misguided, in putting private capital at risk in trying to find oil in the North Sea. They are following the traditional pattern of enterprising people. My right hon. Friend, therefore, should not be criticised too strongly. I am criticising him, but, I hope, carefully and fairly. He should not be criticised from a party polemical point of view for giving consent to public money being placed at the disposal of the Gas Council for the purpose of developing the gas industry of this country. It is not a fair, logical or valid argument. I will not labour that point any longer.
How are we to deal with this great bonanza, as it has been called, in the North Sea? When these discoveries were made a couple of years or more ago, they were big news. They filled all the headlines of the newspapers and gave great optimistic feeling to many people who were rather doleful about our position as a nation because of our lack of natural resources, apart from coal, which was in great trouble. Everybody got the impression that here was something on our doorstep that only needed engineering


skill to hiring it into our homes and factories and we should have much cheaper energy than we ever had before. Some of my hon. Friends have already addressed the House and pointed out that this bonanza is largely an illusion, because, unless it is related to a real economic advantage to the consumer, we are merely replacing the activity of winning coal from the soil, of which we have 200 years' known supplies under our feet, by another.
This country, with its 52 million people, has not inexhaustible demands on energy. I am familiar with the papers put before us by economic wizards. I discount a lot of them, because most of the economic opinion given to the House during my 18 years has been a lot of nonsense and has been proved wrong. I say this seriously. When the Tories were in power they were led up the garden path with all kinds of false witness, false information and false prophecy. We are in the same boat. I ask my right hon. Friend and other members of the Government to be more sceptical in swallowing, hook, line and sinker, the sort of stuff that is poured out from Ministries and their uninspired experts. We must have professional opinion, but so often it: has been proved wrong.
This very considerable and exciting find of gas in the North Sea could have been, and may still be, of great advantage to this country if it continues to flow at the prophesied rate. But if it merely means that it is to substitute the already highly developed elecricity industry and that it will close a great many more mines, in the long run, when the total sums are made up in the national accounts, there may not be any net advantage.
I am not saying anything out of school, because I have taken part in discussions on these matters upstairs and elsewhere. The opinion of the National Coal Board, which has had its own advisers and professional experts at work on the problem, is that the present discoveries of gas, once they are piped through to the point of consumption, will represent the closing of another 28 coal mines These may be extemporary guesses or rough estimates, but they are an attempt to show that this great discovery in the North Sea is not an unmixed blessing to the coal industry which

had already suffered grievous contraction with the closing down of many of our mining communities. The National Coal Board has already taken steps to anticipate this situation. It has taken a large block of financial responsibility for the oil drills in the North Sea. It is part of a consortium working on the exploitation of North Sea gas. They say that this may be a countervailing factor so far as the accountability of the Government for the coal industry is concerned.
Another thing which rather astonished me when I became aware of it quite recently—and the hon. Lady made passing reference to this in her speech, I think—is that North Sea gas has meant that the Government have had to lay down lines of policy as to how it shall be distributed in the country and through what channels. It was decided some time ago that there should be only one purchaser of North Sea gas, the Gas Council, and that it should distribute it through its area boards, through the machinery already in existence. The Gas Council has been at work, because it has come to the conclusion, probably fairly on the evidence available, that North Sea gas is going to take the place completely of towns gas so far as domestic consumption is concerned. This means that all the apparatus, all the gas works, many of them modern because they have recently had very large capital sums put into them to bring them up to date, are going to be obsolescent within the next few years, because they would be quite useless for the exploitation of North Sea gas.
The Gas Council estimates that the capital value of the assets in the gas industry which are going to be written off within a period, I am told, of 10 years, is something of the order of £300 million. In other words, the gas consumer, the domestic consumer, has got to pay over a period of 10 years at the rate of £30 million a year for the one item of writing-off the existing assets of the gas industry. This is a very serious matter and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Ince and my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said so critically that this idea that had been peddled to the public that they are going to get cheap gas is a lot of nonsense because the consumer is going to be called upon to pay for the writing-off of the existing


assets and because there will be so many other repercussions.
This does not mean that I am so stupid, so reactionary or so blind to the development of these things that I think we should not develop North Sea gas. It is one of the facts of history that these discoveries have been made and we must deal with them to the best advantage of the country.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman will recall that Sir Henry Jones said in answer to a question in the Select Committee on 10th April that this £300 million which is to be writen off is largely attributable to the oil reforming plants, which make gas from oil. Therefore, I do not see that this is going to be any skin off the nose of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire).

Mr. Price: I should have liked to say something more about that, but I may have an opportunity of saying it in greater detail on a future occasion.
I want to deal with the capitalisation involved in the future development of the gas industry. This has been considered in isolation from its repercussions on the electricity industry. If the Gas Council and its advisers are successful in their endeavours during the next few years, as they prophesy, this can only mean a reduced demand for electricity and oil, and in the long run the consumer will have to pay for this because they come in the budget below the line.
I should like some reassurance on this point when my right hon. Friend, or whoever is going to reply to the debate, does so. There are many lay people in this country, as my right hon. Friend knows, who are very critical about the increased charges for gas and electricity and all the other power charges which fall on domestic consumers. They want to know as regards the gas industry—and I isolate it from the other industries because we are dealing with a gas Bill tonight—how much capital the industry is supposed to generate from current revenue. A good deal of the increase in gas charges arises from the fact that the previous Administration in the period when they were in office—and I do not want to debate the merits of what they did—required the electricity and gas industries to generate

a considerable part of their capital requirements from the current revenue. I believe that at the present time the gas industry is required to use about 12 per cent. of its current revenue for capital requirements. This is a very high proportion and is reflected in the domestic price of gas. It is even higher in the electricity industry, and it is rising all the time.
I want to be told, as a matter of Government policy, if not tonight then on some future occasion, where the country is going with this process. If an industry has to charge the domestic consumer an ever-increasing share of the cost of its product—whether it be gas, electricity or anything else—to finance the future capital requirements of that industry, to pay for assets which may be in existence 40 or 50 years hence in many cases, this is unfair to the domestic consumer. It is quite unsound, and I am glad that I have the nodded assent of an hon. Gentleman opposite who understands these matters.

Mr. Ridley: What does the hon. Gentleman think would be a fair proportion of new capital for an industry to find from itself? At present, the gas industry is finding 30 per cent. from these new resources. Would he think like the Parliamentary Secretary, that it ought to be 40 per cent., or even 50 per cent.?

Mr. Price: I would not like to guess: there is far too much guesswork in this place. It is like a man who is giving evidence after witnessing a road accident in which somebody has been killed or injured, and is asked by learned counsel what speed he thinks the vehicle was doing. He says, "I do not know, about 60 miles an hour". He has no idea, of course, and I have no idea what would be required, but it ought not to be an inordinately high part of the revenue. When the hon. Gentleman talks about 30 per cent. he is taking a composite figure. At the present moment they take roughly 12 per cent. out of current revenue and the rest is their own borrowing. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire, South is wrong in saying that the gas industry does not borrow except from the Government, and he had better look up his authorities. The industry can borrow, just as the private gas companies such as the North Thames Gas Board could—much of which money


is still being paid back and serviced. However, I will not go into that tonight.

Sir G. Nabarro: I notice that.

Mr. Price: Well, I do not want to sit down having made no more contribution to this debate than a lot of bombast.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would the hon. Gentleman like to know what the exact figures are? British gas stock £286 million, Government finance £763 million, temporary borrowings £14 million, making £1,063 million up to 31st March last, all of which I quoted in the course of my speech.

Mr. Price: I will consider those figures when I read them in HANSARD tomorrow.
I want to wind up this speech, which has been much longer than I thought it would be, with another serious plea to my right hon. Friend the Minister. He is not the first Minister to whom I have made it, either. I made a similar plea some time ago to one of his predecessors about the financing of nationalised industries. I think that the present system is all wrong. I have always supported nationalised industries in principle, for my own reasons, because with certain reservations I believe in nationalisation: so long as it is efficient, I believe in it. I am not a crude nationaliser but I believe in large-scale nationalisation and not in a polemical sense. It is right for the State to control the basic industries. If we had not done so, there would be no coal industry today, since it was bankrupt when we took it over—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With all respect, we cannot debate nationalisation on the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Price: Perhaps I have been led astray, Mr. Speaker, by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, who is always doing that kind of thing. I was going to talk about the railways, but that would probably be out of order as well, so I will get back on the rails.
We are almost the only country which finances its nationalised industries in this way. Some of the polemical speeches of hon. Members opposite suggest that we are the only country with nationalised industries. Bless my soul, Italy, for example, had them long before us. They were the first, and Germany and France

—all these are advanced countries—also have large sectors of their economies within public control. They have ceased to debate nationalisation in Italy. The Italian Parliament does not have this sort of debate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must listen to what I say. We cannot debate nationalisation; we are talking about its financing under the Bill.

Mr. Price: I will try to comply, Mr. Speaker, but I am not debating nationalisation: I am debating the finances of nationalised industries, which is very pertinent to the Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is exactly what I said.

Mr. Price: As I have said to previous Ministers, it is about time that my right hon. Friend considered the processes of our international competitors. For instance, in Italy, there are great financial, trading and commercial institutions. One is the I.R.I., the Istituto per la Ricostru-zione Industriale. The other is the E.M.I., which deals with the power industries, in particular fuel and oil, since they have no coal. These organisations, under the aegis of the Italian Government, are largely financed from the market. They control large sectors of the Italian economy so successfully that Italy has been described by leading economists as the miracle of Europe, having pulled itself up off its knees from complete bankruptcy at the end of the war to become a leading operator in world affairs and export markets.
I might incur the further displeasure of the Chair if I said any more on this aspect, but I should be much happier if the Government could find the flexibility to break away from the crude idea of requiring these vast sums of public money from below the line in the Budget. There is much to be said for raising this money from the market under proper safeguards. There is no difficulty in Italy for the nationalised industries. If hon. Gentlemen opposite who do not share my political views—they are just polemicists and ideologists—[An HON. MEMBER: "YOU are."] I am not ideological about this. I try to decide on observation and evidence—[Interruption.] I cannot read that paper and I cannot see too far tonight. If I have too many interruptions, I shall speak for a


long time, so long as I am in order, but I want to conclude.
The Italians have no difficulty raising money on the market. These State organisations, the E.N.I. and the I.R.I., have weekly meetings with the Minister of Economic Affairs, who tells them the priorities for capital. They might ask, just as our Gas Council is asking for £1,200 million in this Bill, for perhaps £500 million. After a little haggling, the Minister may dig his heels in at £300 million, and say that the Government will guarantee 10 per cent. and that they should go to Lombardy's, to the market, to raise the £270 million from private sources.
Every time I.R.I. bonds are issued on the market, they are over-subscribed in hours. Private funds are poured like water into their nationalised industries. I want to see us, not do exactly the same, but at least approach the matter with an open mind and not continue by this rigid method—

Mr. Webster: Is the hon. Gentleman saying this in connection with Clause 2, about borrowing money from abroad, thus giving these foreign undertakings an investment in the British Gas Council?

Mr. Price: Not at all. I am not referring to Clause 2, but am saying that this is a matter of policy which should be discussed at the highest level by the British Government.
I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley in something she said about financing the nationalised industries. The end result of this process, which I have supported for a long time —I am getting critical, because it must now be considered—is that most of the money required is borrowed abroad and much of our deficit on overseas account, which is the Government's constant worry, is in that borrowing. Everyone knows it, but does nothing about it. The major item of our overseas deficit is the result of the requirements of nationalised industries.
This is a debatable question, which I will not pursue. I have spoken longer than I intended, but I shall naturally vote for the Bill, with some reservations, because it is not a vote for supply but

merely gives facilities for the money to be available from Government sources, subject to the approval of the Government. I hope that serious notice will be taken of some of my critical, but moderate, points, because the future welfare of this country depends not only on our success in overseas markets and the export trade but also, ultimately, on our making the fullest and most efficient use of our home resources and stopping the waste of money wherever it can be discovered.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I am relieved that we do not have to debate the borrowing powers of the I.R.I. and the E.N.I. on top of all our other business this week, because, on top of an afternoon shift on this Bill and an evening shift on the Town and Country Planning Bill, we would need a third shift. However, if the bonds raised by I.R.I. on the open market are fixed interest, there would be no advantage in debating such a system for financing our nationalised industries, because the people of this country have gathered—rightly, I think—a suspicion of fixed-interest securities in general, whether issued by the Gas Council, the Treasury or anyone else, because they know that, whatever Government are in power, the rate of inflation will continue as in the past and the value of their money will be whittled away. I do not think his suggestion would really be very helpful in financing this enormous borrowing need for the Gas Council.
The hon. Gentleman also said how much he agreed with the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), who had drawn attention to the pressure groups which flogged their own briefs, particularly those whose interests were with the various nationalised industries and the oil industry, and whose interests were conflicting and to some extent irreconcilable. I thought the hon. Gentleman would like to know that I have Calor gas in my own home and therefore cannot have any personal interest in the borrowing powers of the Gas Council.

Mr. McGuire: I just want to make clear that in talking about flogging their own briefs I just meant nationalised departments, not hon. Members, flogging their own briefs.

Mr. Lubbock: Yes, I realise that that was what the hon. Member meant when he used that phrase, which was taken up by his hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton, that the Gas Council, the Coal Board, the Central Electricity Generating Board and so on all have different interests and want their points of view expressed. I think that when the hon. Member made his point it was in connection with the need for a much more co-ordinated energy policy than we have had in the past and the unsatisfactory nature of the debates which we have had since the White Paper was produced, for that while it has been possible to discuss energy matters from time to time we have not been able to draw all the strands together. Again tomorrow, as the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) said, we shall be discussing another facet of the problem, the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on the nuclear power programme.

Mr. Palmer: The hon. Member would agree that unless individual points of view are expressed we cannot easily coordinate them, can we?

Mr. Lubbock: We have to have these individual points of view expressed, but what was worrying the hon. Member for Ince was that we do not consider them in a single debate, in a general debate on fuel and energy policy. We have debates on Reports of Select Committees and on Bills for borrowing powers, which we get at fairly frequent intervals, and also on Orders, but we do not have debates in which all those various strands are brought together so that the House can see what kind of energy policy the Government are pursuing, or whether they have an energy policy at all, and I very much agree with what the hon. Member said about that.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton said that there was no net advantage if all we are doing is to substitute natural gas for other fuel, and he mentioned that he had been told that 28 coal mines would be closed if natural gas were introduced at the rate planned in the White Paper. Well, of course, he made the same mistake, if I may say so, as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). The introduction of natural gas is not going to make the

slightest difference to the amount of coal produced in this country, for if it had not been for the fortunate discoveries in the North Sea, by 1975 the whole gas industry would have changed over to oil. This was happening at a fantastic rate before the discoveries in 1966.

Colonel Lancaster: I think that that is against the weight of evidence. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As has been suggested, already 24 million tons of coal were likely to be replaced by 1975. That had nothing to do with gas being replaced by oil.

Mr. Lubbock: What we are talking about now are the 16 million tons which the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South mentioned as the consumption of the gas industry in 1966–67. I was pointing out that, over the period before natural gas had had any effect at all, the consumption of oil was increasing to such an extent that by 1967–68 the number of therms produced from oil gasification plants would be greatly in excess at 1,617 million therms of the amount produced from coal, which was 976 million therms. So that already, before natural gas has had any effect whatever, this process has been happening and would have continued till the middle 1970s; the whole of the gas used in this country would have been derived from oil if no other changes had taken place. I honestly think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not got this one straight, nor the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton.
It is important that miners should not think that their employment is being jeopardised by the introduction of natural gas and that they therefore should be persuaded to oppose it. If it is for the benefit of the country—and that is what we are here to discuss—we should not unnecessarily alarm people into thinking that some moves taken by the Government and which are for the general benefit of the community would have an adverse effect on them in particular.

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman will at least pay me the compliment of agreeing that I have never, either in this House or elsewhere, opposed the introduction of natural gas, will he not? I have regarded the discoveries as a good


thing in themselves, if they are properly exploited. It would be quite wrong to create any impression that I am an opponent of natural gas. I am nothing of the kind. I want proper use of all our resources, properly planned by the people responsible.

Mr. Lubbock: I accept that, but I thought that the effect of the hon. Gentleman's remarks could be that some miners would think that their employment would be jeopardised and that, therefore, they would be brought to oppose Government policy on this issue. That would be harmful to the interests of the community as a whole without in any way benefiting those miners' employment.
I come for a moment to the speech by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. He interested me very much in what he had to say about the genesis of the reasoned Amendment, and how it was at his instigation that the Tory Party put it down. I am glad to see that he is assuming the mantle of the leadership of the Tory Party. I always thought he had it in him. I am glad that now my impression has been confirmed. I agree with him that it was a great shame that on the other side of the House there was nobody of more importance than the Parliamentary Secretary listening to his speech. What was worse was that there were only six of his hon. Friends here. I think that showed shocking disrespect to the hon. Member.

Mr. J. T. Price: There were no members of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Lubbock: Yes there were. I was listening to the hon. Gentleman, and with my usual care, as I always do in these debates, for I always enjoy his speeches greatly. Although I think some of what he said was nonsensical he is always enjoyable to listen to.
To disagree with him on one issue, he said that the gas industry could not contribute to exports. Of course, in the direct sense that is true. It is not selling gas to the Belgians or the French any more than we are selling electricity to the Germans, though we may sell some to the French. The point is that the industry is the basis for the production

by other industries of goods for export. The hon. Member may laugh, but it seems to me that if this country is to get out of the economic mess which it is in and has been in for some years past it has got to concentrate much more than it has done on promoting exports.
I have always been a strong supporter of the use of electricity for smelters if an economic case can be shown for that, and I would be an equally strong supporter of gas in the chemical industry. It is one of the sectors in which the rate of growth will be most rapid, from now, at the end of the 1960s, into the 1970s, and it can make a very substantial contribution to exports through the use of its products in the chemical industry, thereby leading directly to the earning of foreign currency for this country of ours. Moreover, I would expect natural gas to replace oil. As we see from the table of figures presented by Sir Henry Jones to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, it will progressively in the 1970s be important in promoting exports and also, what is equally important, in reducing imports. Perhaps if we concentrated more on that —which, in the long-term, would not be as difficult to secure as an increase in exports—we could put our balance of payments right quickly. This means that the industry could be extremely vital to the restoration of our balance of payments.
The argument advanced about the Bill, particularly by Conservative hon. Members, is that we should not let the gas industry have these enormous borrowing powers extending over a period of years but should consider the matter as a short-term problem and force the industry to return to Parliament more frequently so that we are able to review the progress it has made, discover whether the uncertainties to which the hon. Member for Finchley referred have been removed, whether the extent of the supply has reached the figures mentioned by Sir Henry Jones and his colleagues and whether the movement of prices which we were led to expect some years ago has, or is likely to, come about. I disagree with this argument, not because there should not be, in the words of the Opposition Amendment
… the most rigorous Parliamentary scrutiny of all public expenditure …


but because I question whether the Floor of the House is the right place to conduct such an inquiry. I have listened to the whole of this debate and while I have enjoyed the speeches, I cannot pretend that I have learned a great deal about the gas industry since half past three this afternoon. Our discussion has not added to the total sum of human knowledge.

Mr. David Steel: Except for the last ten minutes.

Mr. Lubbock: My hon. Friend is too kind.
If we are to subject the public industries to the scrutiny which the hon. Member for Finchley wants, then let the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries do that upstairs under the able guidance of the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster). Let the members of that Committee get on with the job because they have the time to do it while we, faced with a crowded Parliamentary timetable, are not able to go into the figures provided by the Gas Council and the rosy and other predictions that are put forward. We should allow our colleagues to go into the matter in depth and then present us with their report on which we can form a conclusion. This is better than having an endless success of general borrowing powers debates because they do not get us any further and few questions are answered. I would like the answers to some questions and, in asking a few, I hope that the hon. Member for Westhoughton will pass them on to his colleagues on the Select Committee and to Sir Henry Jones.
The hon. Member for Finchley spoke of uncertainties about supply. It is safe to predict, I suggest, that 4,000 m.c.f.d. will be available as a basis for the Government's and Gas Council's policy. We have an assured supply of 3,000 m.c.f.d., as Sir Henry Jones has shown, and it would be unusual geologically if, having made these discoveries and knowing what the rate of success of drilling has been since we began in the North Sea, we did not increase the supply figure to beyond the 4,000 m.c.f.d. target mentioned by Sir Henry Jones.
My view is the opposite to that expressed by the hon. Member for Finchley. I consider that we have vastly underesti-

mated the resources of the North Sea. We have explored only a tiny fraction of the area and, as we go north, we may find oil as well as gas—as predicted by some geologists—and that would have a profound effect on our economy. Having studied the literature on the subject, I have come to exactly the opposite conclusion to that reached by the hon. Member for Finchley. I believe that the sources of supply mentioned by the Gas Council are conservatively estimated and that the reserves which exist under the bed and not yet discovered may amount to double the figures so far announced.

Mr. David Lane: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that whatever the geological prospects—nobody is disputing that side of the question—it is essential that the price negotiated is high enough to encourage the further exploration that is necessary? My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made that point.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my next remarks. Two inconsistent points of view have been expressed in the debate. First, the hon. Member for Finchley said that we would not get the enormous price reductions we had been led to expect. Some hon. Members agreed with her and said that the whole thing was a fraud and a sham and that the 13 per cent. increase imposed this year, with the approval of the Prices and Incomes Board, had shown how unwarrantably optimistic everyone had been when the discoveries of natural gas were first made.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) and the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) believe that the companies exploring for gas in the North Sea are not being paid properly for their efforts and that if the price were restricted to as little as 2·87d. per therm—the price which Phillips is being paid—they will be driven to the other side of the North Sea or the Middle East and this exploration will cease.
Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. Either the price will come down and we will be screwing the poor wretched oil companies until oil runs out of them—with the result that the British gas consumer will be receiving gas at


too generous a price—or the price reductions will not take place, so that perhaps we are being too generous to the prospecting companies. If the Gas Council has arrived at this agreement with Phillips, I suggest that one can take it that it was an arms length transaction and that if gas is coming ashore at that price it is bound to lead to some price reductions when it gets into the consumers' stoves and heaters.
Hon. Members may ask how one can say that when the nation has been faced with the recent tremendous gas price increase. I will explain why the Government made a serious mistake in this matter but first, to prove that my remarks have some basis, I commend to hon. Members a news item in The Times Business Supplement of 7th May about the introduction of natural gas into the South-East in the coming year. The article commented that in a Press announcement made by the South-Eastern Gas Board, Mr. Nigel Bruce had said that nearly 100,000 customers in the area would be able to take natural gas in the next year and that the conversion rate would build up to 300,000 customers by 1970. It went on to point out that since these people were changing over, there would be a reduction in price at the time of conversion. The hon. Member for Finchley is, therefore, wrong in saying that these reductions are a chimera. In fact, they will happen the instant that consumers' appliances are converted, and this is proved by the announcement of the South-Eastern Gas Board.

Mrs. Thatcher: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to my speech as carefully as he said he was he would recollect my remark that it is of little use to tell the consumer that she will get a reduction of about a half-penny when she has just suffered an increase of 11 per cent.

Mr. Lubbock: I dispute that there is force in the hon. Lady's argument. I was about to query whether this large price increase, approved by the Prices and Incomes Board, was justified. I had some correspondence with the Parliamentary Secretary on this point and I am not satisfied with the justification for the increase as put forward by the Prices and Incomes Board.
First, however, I must make a general point about the Board's Report, since this

is of fundamental importance. The Board was asked to look at the tariffs for the gas industry in the light of the financial target fixed for one year. At the same time, it was asked to take into account the Government's policies for the nationalised industries, which include the Fuel Policy White Paper which required the gas industry to vastly expand its output in the next few years.
The N.B.P.I. said that it had to consider to what extent these two objectives were reconcilable. I do not think it possible to ask the Gas Council to achieve a 10·2 per cent. return on capital in 1968–69 and also to have regard to what the price of gas will be in the system once all the old coal-fired plant has been phased out of existence and the oil reforming plant has been scrapped and £300 million invested in it written off.
The industry would not be able to do these two things. By doing the arithmetic in those two ways the two prices would be different. First, there would be the price caused by 10·2 per cent. return on capital and then the quite different price of looking at the long term plans of the industry and finding what happens when the pipelines are in to take natural gas into consumers' homes. If the two figures are different, the N.B.P.I. could not adhere to the terms of reference given to it by the Government.
I turn to the table of costs on page 9 of the N.B.P.I. Report, which is the basis of the price increase which has been imposed. I shall make comments to show that there is serious doubt whether the figures can be trusted, not that the N.B.P.I. cooked the books, but that the assumptions made are so cautious that it appears that we could have got away with a much lower price increase even within the rather confusing terms of reference.
In 1968–69, for example, we have 0·6d. per therm on account of devaluation and the Middle East situation. I noticed in his annual report the chairman of B.P. said the other day that the effect of the closure of the Suez Canal resulting from the Middle East war would by 1972 be small, and by 1975 minimal. The chairman meant that the company is constructing 200,000 ton tankers which can go via the Cape and which would be too bulky to go through the Canal, even if navigation could be restored.
The cost per ton of bringing crude oil from the Middle East in those large vessels would be less per ton than bringing it through the Suez Canal. That is why Sir Maurice Bridgeman said that as these vessels came into service the closure of the Suez Canal could be taken in one's stride. The 0·6d. per therm on account of the Middle East crisis will not, therefore, be a lasting burden on the costs of the gas industry. It will disappear as its crude oil comes in in very large tankers. Once the industry has phased out the use of oil for reforming, it will not arise at all because then we shall not be using oil. Here is a short-term cost which the industry faces which ought not to be taken into account in the arithmetic.
Then there is the cost of converting domestic consumers' appliances, about which the hon. Lady was very amusing. I read the article from which she quoted. It is difficult for the consumer to see why he ought to throw apparatus away when he considers that it has many years of useful life left in it. I am amazed that the cost should be as enormous as has been quoted. The N.B.P.I. was apparently told that the average cost per consumer is £30. Sir Henry Jones told the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries that conversion of a very old gas cooker would cost up to £10, but if it were a modern cooker the cost would be only a few shillings. If £30 is the average cost per consumer it appears that everyone has either three very ancient gas using appliances, or about 30 modern appliances. I wonder if the figures are grossly exaggerated.
At this early stage when conversions have been practical only on an experimental basis at such places as Canvey Island and Burton-on-Trent, we cannot get at the final figure for costing all the conversions throughout the United Kingdom. I ask the Minister to look carefully at the figures and to see whether they are exaggerated because, if £400 million of the borrowing powers we are discussing is to meet the cost of conversions, perhaps the figure could be whittled down.
I have given these examples to show that I am not at all happy about the price increase imposed with the approval of the N.B.P.I. Just as it has been said that the borrowing powers of the gas

industry should be justified to the public and just as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South suggested, that this could be done by coming back every year to the House, and as I agree that this should be done in the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, so it is even more important where price increases are imposed by nationalised industries and the consumer has to carry a great burden at a time when his wages or salary is fixed that that should also be justified by the figures the Gas Council has in its possession.
I appeal to the Minister to think carefully before allowing price increases based on such flimsy evidence, which upset many people, particularly old-age pensioners who have to meet heavy charges further increased as a result of the N.B.P.I. Report. Does not the Minister think that they should be justified up to the hilt and further increases by the gas industry or any other nationalised industry justified, not only to the House but as publicly as possible, so that people will know that they are not being fleeced?
I do not think it sensible to move reasoned Amendments to borrowing powers Bills. I look upon this as a political device. I certainly will not support the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South in rushing through the Lobby in opposition to the Gas Council's requests.

Sir G. Nabarro: I did not say "rush".

Mr. Lubbock: Flit.

Sir G. Nabarro: No. Tread with a glad heart.

Mr. Lubbock: I want to see gas prices reduced as rapidly as possible. If the Gas Council tells me that at this stage the borrowing powers have to be increased by this amount to do so and can promise that the rewards will be there in the end, I will go along with it.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I am sorry that I was not here at the beginning of this debate. I came in to listen when the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) was on his feet. Everyone knows that he is an extremely able and entertaining speaker. I never fail to be delighted by his speeches. He never fails to enthuse me when my enthusiasm for the Government


is lagging. May I not disappoint him too much by saying that if he fails to get his hon. Friends to follow him into the Lobby, he drives a greater number of my hon. Friends into the Government Lobby? He has objected that the sum which the Bill seeks to enable the Gas Council to borrow may be much greater than is needed because only one-twelfth of the supplies of natural gas have been contracted for at 2·78d. per therm.

Sir G. Nabarro: 2·87d. per therm.

Mr. Atkins: That is worse. This is the clue to the hon. Member's objection. Like many of his hon. Friends and people outside, he has a doctrinaire objection to the Government bargaining well to have the public money if it means that foreign companies or British companies do not get such high profits.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the balance of payments. I am not certain about the figure, but I read that even at this figure when all the natural gas resources are being exploited it will mean a payment of £60 million a year to foreign companies because they, rather than our own companies or our Government, are exploiting the natural gas. That is a considerable loss of revenue on the balance of payments. It would be even worse if the figure per therm were to be increased. The figure which has been arrived at is fair. The Government have consulted United States experts, where the amount paid per therm is even less. If the figure is satisfactory to Phillips, it should be satisfactory to us, because it is likely that that company knows what it is doing.
It is not the coal industry that will suffer from this, because in recent years gas has been increasingly produced from oil. The amount of coal that will be used in future will be negligible. Since this is a national resource, the more gas that is used the less oil we shall use. This is one of the worries of the oil companies. They are afraid that they will lose by getting less money for the natural gas which they are able to exploit and by selling less oil. I know that hon. Members opposite represent the British oil interests very strongly.

Sir G. Nabarro: Absolute rot.

Mr. Atkins: That is true. One intervention might be taken to be representation of such an interest.

Sir G. Nabarro: That is a most impertinent suggestion to make after these copious references to my speech. I declare my interest at once—absolutely none; no interest as shareholder, direct or indirect, in any oil company operating in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now withdraw his scurrilous innuendo.

Mr. Atkins: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I said "at least one intervention in the. debate". I did not refer to the hon. Gentleman. I know well enough that the hon. Gentleman represents no vested interests.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am much obliged.

Mr. Atkins: Some of the objections made from the other side are concerned not so much with excess borrowing by the Government as with price. To say, as the hon. Gentleman did—I think that I quoted him correctly in this instance— that eleven-twelfths of the supplies are not being exploited, and, by implication, that they may not be exploited is being very pessimistic. Very conservative estimates have been made so far of the supplies. It is likely that much larger quantities than are envisaged at present will be exploited.
Let us suppose that eleven-twelfths of the supplies will not be exploited. Are we right to assume that the Gas Council will not need to borrow any further capital? It is likely that, if the natural resources of the North Sea are not exploited, the Gas Council will require to borrow much more than is envisaged in the Bill for installing new plant to produce gas by conventional methods. This method of supplying gas is much cheaper than having to install plant to produce gas. It is not to be assumed that the Gas Council will not require the sum mentioned in the Bill if eleven-twelfths of the gas supplies are not exploited.
The gas industry is a supreme example of successful public enterprise. When the industry was nationalised after the war, some of us objected to its nationalisation, because we regarded the industry as a worthless asset. Most of us thought that


it was already quickly decaying and would not take long to die. The Gas Council, with remarkable enterprise, set about producing gas in new ways and stimulating the demand for gas. It succeeded remarkably well. It has turned a decaying industry into one of the most prosperous growth industries in Britain. This remarkable achievement should be acknowledged more frequently.
Some objections have been made by, among others, the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, to the effect that the Government are spending too much. This kind of Government expenditure— investment in productive capacity—is surely best of all. Some of my hon. Friends and I have objected to Government expenditure on military equipment abroad. I agree that there has been too much of that type of expenditure in the past. We think that expenditure in the form of investment in nationalised industries is be:ter than gifts to private industry which will not always be used to the best advantage. Expenditure of the type covered by the Bill is the best of all.
Our chief problem for many years has been that there has been insufficient investment in industry. If the Government show the way, as they do in the Bill, by increasing such investment, they require and deserve the greatest possible commendation from us.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: The majority of speakers have dealt, in the main, with the vast sum of money involved in the Bill. Far too little time has been devoted to consumer problems. The Minister stressed three points. One was the effect that developments in the gas industry were likely to have on the coal industry. The second was the part that North Sea gas would play in the future of gas consumption. Then the right hon. Gentleman talked about the improvement of marketing.
In connection with North Sea gas, which is the main issue in this debate, the Minister said that £44 million would be devoted to North Sea developments. Will £44 million be necessary for additional services or matters arising out of the discoveries under the North Sea, such as pipelines or other installations; or does this refer to joint ventures which the Gas Council will exploit with com-

mercial companies? Does the £44 million refer almost exclusively to offshore drilling to discover further gas fields under the North Sea? A certain amount of apprehension has been expressed about the amount of development work going on in the North Sea. The price of 2·87d. per therm for North Sea gas is very much lower than many of the oil companies originally expected, and it is thought that some are removing their rigs to the coast of Europe, where they feel that their exploratory work and discoveries may be more generously rewarded.
At the beginning of the North Sea development some of us gained the impression that the oil companies had been told that if they found gas in the North Sea an acceptable price would be one that was competitive with what the Gas Council was then paying for Sahara gas, which I believe was about 5d. a therm. It was felt that an agreement had been reached with the National Coal Board that whatever the price of gas coming into the country the price to the consumer would be brought up to a figure equivalent to that at which gas could be produced from indigenous coal.
I believe that at that time the Gas Council faced very substantial profits, because there was a substantial difference between the price it paid for Sahara gas and the cost of producing gas from coal from our own pits. It embarked on a very costly advertising campaign, not only to stimulate the demand for gas but to show on its accounts that it was not making a substantial profit, which would result in the consumers asking for a reduction in prices.
I believe that the price of 2·87d. per therm which has been agreed with Phillips does not take fully into account the enormous amount of money that has been expended on the exploration work. It may discourage a number of companies from continuing their efforts in the North Sea, which must be ultimately to the detriment of the national economy.
I saw from my own gas bill from the North Thames Gas Board the other day that it was charging me 27d. per therm, and with the standing charge the total price per therm must be well over 28d. Therefore, the consumer in the London area—and no doubt this applies over the rest of the country—is being asked to


pay 10 times as much for his gas as the figure agreed with Phillips.
The Bill will obviously be passed, and the money will be available for the requirements of the Gas Council. What hope do the Government hold out to the consumer that there will ultimately be a decrease in the price he pays for his gas? That is what the public are really interested in. When the figure the Council is paying for North Sea gas is one-tenth the price charged to the consumer, there must be scope for a price reduction.
Is any time limit set to repayment of the amounts concerned in the Bill? Is it thought that from the profits of the industry these large sums will be liquidated over a period of time? Does the Minister expect that in two or three years' time, or perhaps in only a year, his Department will ask for additional borrowing powers?
The Bill would be acceptable to the public if they really felt that the cost of gas to the consumer would be reduced. But the disparity between the prices the Gas Boards are demanding from the consumers today and the price agreed with one company for its discoveries in the North Sea is so vast that there must be a scope for a price reduction. That is what we have been looking for.
When a settlement was assumed to be near in April, 1967, a headline appeared in one of our national evening newspapers saying:
Gas price may be slashed by a third Central heating rates could come down 6d. a therm.
Was there any truth in that headline at the time? Can the Minister hold out any hope of a reduction in the cost to the consumer when gas costing 2·87d. a therm is flowing through the mains?
I hope that the Minister's reference to strengthening the marketing organisation concerns only the marketing of the gas and not the sale of appliances, and that the money will not be used to subsidise the gas showrooms at the expense of private enterprise, which must compete. I see that the Bill also deals with electricity. Electrical traders up and down the country are having to compete with a subsidised State industry in retailing goods to the general public, and I hope that

the borrowing powers the Bill confers will not be used to the detriment of the private trader who is supplying goods in both the gas and electrical industries.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I might have been happier if we had been discussing what might be called the National Fuel Board (Borrowing Powers) Bill, because that would have shown me that we had taken possibly the final step in the evolution of fuel policy towards integration, which would imply that in capital investment and capital expenditure programmes there would be proper observation of the fair and rightful share which the four sources of fuel might have in the national interest. I am afraid that that will not be for some time, because any Minister of any Government is bound to face a major dilemma, particularly in giving any of the nationalised industries borrowing powers.
Not long ago the possibility of talking about fuel was relatively easy. We were talking then of two fuels. Now we are talking about four fuels, and the most activated forms are nuclear and gas. While we have not reached a stage of talking in terms of financing a properly integrated fuel industry, nevertheless, we have to be cautious about the extent to which we give borrowing powers to each industry when they work in many respects quite separately.
I was impressed by the hon. Lady's comment about the need to take care. There is no quarrel about this on either side of the House. There is a great need for scrutiny, and to that extent the words in the Amendment appear to be reasonable. I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that this is perhaps not the place to do it, and that it is better, wiser and more efficient to discuss the detailed estimates and programme of such an industry in another place, preferably upstairs, where the books can be looked at. The use of the words in the Amendment arises from the need to have a rigorous Parliamentary scrutiny of all public expenditure, but, in the context of a debate in the House of Commons, that is political play.
The other reason why hon. Members opposite do not want to give a Second Reading to the Bill is that, according to their Amendment, they have not had


the opportunity of debating the White Paper on Fuel Policy. This is not a very good reason for refusing a major and expanding industry the borrowing powers that it needs. The important question before the House is, does the gas industry require these borrowing powers?
The existing borrowing powers arose from an Act of 1948, with a lower limit of £900 million rising to £1,200 million. The Bill seeks to give added borrowing powers to the Gas Council and to the area boards of £1,600 million at the lower limit. I presume the maximum of £2,400 million refers to a term of several years ending in 1972–73. The condition between the lower and upper limits is under Parliamentary control. Beyond the limit of £1,600 million the Minister will have to make an Order, which will have to come to the House. In that sense there is Parliamentary control. An objection to Second Reading on the grounds that are put before us in the Amendment does not appear to be valid.
We have heard a lot today about the enormous expenditure that the Gas Council and the area boards are to be allowed to embark upon. There have been expressions of deep concern, but of the 630 Members of Parliament, there are very few present today who are as concerned as the hon. Lady suggested.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: They are on the Committees.

Mr. Leadbitter: I have heard that excuse before. It is not legitimate to convey to the public deep concern when that deep concern is only truly felt by some of the Members of Parliament who are here.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman must not denigrate hon. Members of the House in this way. As he knows perfectly well, the attendance has been decimated because of the silly way in which business is arranged. They are upstairs.

Mr. Leadbitter: I will not pursue the point any further. I have made the point that it is not fair to the public to express concern when the concern is not there. The Gas Council has submitted estimates to the Government based upon programmes which have been seen to be acceptable, and which reflect the ex-

panding nature of the industry arising from the exploitation of gas in the North Sea. That is a true picture of the situation. It is wrong to express alarm in terms of public expenditure which is not true and when Members of Parliament have shown that that is not the position.
The hon. Lady the Member for Finch-ley (Mrs. Thatcher) has told the House that the costs of conversion would amount to £400 million. The hon. Lady forgot to mention that if natural gas is not distributed to the 13 million existing consumers and the 80,000 existing industrialists, they must continue to use town gas. Town gas is conveyed to users through gas-making plant. If there is no conversion, gas-making plant and replacement of gas-making plant are needed at a cost in the order of £600 million. It was not quite fair to say that the £300 million or £400 million required for the cost of conversion was an expenditure which could be taken by itself. The hon. Lady should have gone on to say that the cost of keeping gas-making plant, newly commissioned plant and replacement plant, was much higher.
The choice for the Government and the Gas Council is quite simple. It is to take advantage of the great new discovery in the North Sea and, before production gets into full swing, provide for the means of distribution, so that in the next 10 years there is not a programme of capital investment in new gas-making plant, but a less costly project of conversion of heating systems for the domestic user and industry.
It follows, however, that the comments on this subject, unfortunately, were very much belated. Even now, the distribution services for natural gas are well on the way to development. The pipeline from Easington to the north and that from the south-east terminal to the central north-south line are pretty well on the way. Some 1,300 miles of piped distribution services for natural gas represent the programme on which the Gas Council has already set its course.
The capital programme arising out of the discovery of natural gas cannot be stopped, and the question for the Gas Council and the area boards to answer is, what is the best rate of development which is in the true interests of the industry and of the other industries which supply fuel?
Having asked that question, I hope that I can ask the Minister if this rate of development has been attended to properly. If we go too fast, we may create an imbalance in our fuel servicing. If we go too slow we may create a great deal of uncertainty among the companies which are exploring. It is a vitally important question and its examination requires the most careful study, because it is a matter which is extremely sensitive and finely balanced.
At the moment, something like 3,000 m.c.f.d. is being produced from the gas fields in the North Sea and, as the hon. Member for Orpington said, in the near future that may increase to 4,000 m.c.f.d. In terms of evaluation, the significance of this can be determined very briefly by pointing out that we import 100 m.c.f.d. from Algeria and, therefore, the fields in the North Sea are by no means small. There are millions of pounds worth of capital invested and it is incumbent upon the Government and the Gas Council to look ahead and plan distribution services, conversions and the capital programme in such a way that consumers and suppliers are not affected adversely at any point. It requires a careful and continuing watching brief day by day.
In the last analysis, in an area where the tendency is to talk in terms of economics and technical jargon, it should be borne in mind that we are discussing the men and women who are both producing and consuming. We are not the judges of what is best in material terms when we address ourselves to the problem in that sense. Men and women work in the coal industry, the electricity industry and the oil industry. Ancillary to those industries there are many other services upon which men and women depend for their livelihoods. I hope that what I have read in the White Paper on Fuel Policy will help me to urge the Government to be cautious about the rate of capital investment in the gas industry or, for that matter, in any other industry. They must move away a little from strict material terms of profitability within an individual industry and try to look in social profitability terms at the whole fuel industry, comprising gas, coal, oil and nuclear energy.
The weak child in this quartet is coal, and it is the only long standing indigenous fuel that we have. The men in that industry have given their lives to the country, and much of our wealth has flowed from the loyalty of the mining communities. At times, when one considers work conditions and wages, it has been more than their loyalty.
In considering our overall fuel policy, a careful study must be made of the part which coal is to play in the national interest, what percentage of growth it is to have, and so on. As we have seen in recent weeks, there is a productivity element even in an extractive industry which in material, social and economic terms can be beneficial to the country.
When we are dealing with the borrowing powers of individual elements of the fuel complex, while it may be easy to say to the Government that the Gas Council has justified its case for increasing the limits of its borrowing powers, at the same time we must not delude ourselves about the need to marry our thinking about it with the other elements in fuel policy.
I have tried to understand why we want to give borrowing powers to the gas and electricity boards to raise foreign currency. The hon. Lady mentioned this and when she sat down I tried to see what advantages we would gain. The House has not been enlightened about it. What are the advantages, both to the industry and to the country, in having power to borrow foreign currency? This is a most important question and too little has been said about it today. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some information on this.
I hope that my right hon. Friend understands that hon. Members on both sides, apart from the general political banter which goes on from time to time, are anxious that, when we give the Government certain powers, it should be realised that it is on the understanding that we have not had the benefit of looking at the details of capital programmes and costings and cost effectiveness. Because we often lack such information, it would be better if a White Paper, in addition to the brief memorandum attached to a Bill, were issued to explain these details more fully.
It is easy and interesting to talk about principles and programmes in general but sometimes we in this House would like to look upon ourselves not so much as laymemn but rather as intelligent and interested people who want information which we can scrutinise with care, so that we may have the opportunity of being able to advise the Government against the advisers whose advice sometimes lead to shortcomings in the Government's proposals.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. David Lane: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) has said. But I thought that, at the beginning of his speech, he took too lightheartedly the huge sums of public money we are talking about. We are also discussing one of the most exciting and significant events in this country this century—the discovery and introduction of indigenous natural gas. That is not immediately obvious from the sparse attendance at the debate, but the poor attendance is one of the regrettable symptoms of the clogging of business which means that many hon. Members who would like to have been here are upstairs dealing with other Bills.
I support the Amendment. This is a difficult issue. On the one hand, we want to give the strongest encouragement to the growth of natural gas consumption. On the other hand, we have the duty to watch the spending of the taxpayers' money on this scale, even if it is still in the future. My support for the Amendment is in no way a criticism—and I hope that this goes for my right hon. and hon. Friends—of the way in which the gas operation has been done so far.
I am thinking primarily of the North Sea search, done mainly by private enterprise. It is good that we should pay tribute to this. It has been made possible by the 1964 Act, passed promptly by the last Government, which paved the way to what has happened since in the takeover by technology. We have seen technology at work brilliantly in the North Sea search and we are seeing it this summer, particularly in East Anglia, in the pipeline laying.
We see it in a small but important detail of the future—the radio control of the flow of gas. I am pleased that

part of the work for this is to be done by a company in my constituency. We should pay tribute to the technology making possible what we are discussing. We do not wish to hamper the enterprise of the exploring companies, the Gas Council and the consumers in their plans to make use of the gas. The gas will be introduced year after year, very quickly in several parts of East Anglia. It will give an extra development fillip to that area. As it is a non-toxic gas we hope that it will lower the rate of suicide, not least in my own constituency.
I cannot welcome this Bill however. These big new powers for which we are being asked to vote, cover a five-year spread and there are enormous uncertainties over the whole business. As has been said, we have not had a real debate on this fuel policy White Paper, except at odd moments of the night. I hope that with a new Minister of Power and a new Leader of the House, we may still get the chance for a full debate on the principles before long.
In several places the White Paper mentions the uncertainty of these forecasts. A second uncertainty has to do with the beach price to be paid by the Gas Council for the gas. We know there are delicate negotiations in progress and trust that it will not be long before a settlement is reached which all parties regard as fair.
The aim must be, as the White Paper says:
… that the price should be fixed as low as possible, consistent with encouraging exploration.
I hope that the zeal for a low cost form of energy will not force the price so low that further exploration is discouraged. Enormous cost is involved for these further reserves to be proved. I have not time to go into the figures, but it is vital that nothing should be done to put off further exploration into the more difficult areas of the search. At its lowest, it is a little disquieting to read in the Press that, compared with the end of 1967, when 14 rigs were at work in the North Sea, this week there are only four. There are signs of these moving elsewhere. I hope that these important considerations will not be lost sight of in the remaining and crucial stages of the price negotiations.
I turn to the market for the gas. There is a tremendous debate going on this week involving a parade of all the power barons, about the different possibilities for using natural gas. The Chairman of the National Coal Board has been talking about it, leaders of the electricity industry want to get their hands on more gas; there is the question of how far beyond the premium markets natural gas should go into industrial markets. This is a major question mark.
I have a point to raise about conversion. I have seen two reports in the evening papers. One was about the enormous plans for introducing the gas in many parts of the country, and the other was a letter from a constituent of mine who had read about the difficulties of conversion in Canvey Island, asking if these technical snags had been overcome. If the Parliamentary Secretary can reassure those who are to have this conversion that such snags have been overcome, we should be very grateful. So, given this large area of uncertainty, we have the main financial request of the Government to the House for powers to go straight to an extra £1,200 million of borrowing.
This, on my arithmetic, is £5 per year per head of the population, men, women and children. This is an enormous sum of money and I suggest, as my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said earlier, that it would be far more satisfactory in this situation if we could be certain in two years' time, which happens to be the time when the coal borrowing powers expire, of having a full discussion in the House and not necessarily an abbreviated discussion on an Order.
Summing up, may I say why I support the Amendment? We are being offered by the Government a very attractive cherry, but I do not think we should take it at one bite. We want to go forward enthusiastically with natural gas but we have to show a proper concern for the use of national resources and for the taxpayers' money; and the danger seems to me to be that the progress may be rather over-enthusiastic and there may be inadequate protection for the taxpayers' interests. For that reason, I hope the House will not give an unqualified Second Reading to this Bill tonight.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: Sandwiched rather incongruously in this Bill concerned with borrowing powers is Clause 5 which empowers the authorities concerned to provide technical assistance for overseas aid. It is incongruous that it should be there, but none the less I welcome this because it is a subject very dear to my heart. I see that it makes very little difference to the financial position of the industries concerned. Indeed, it does not in any way represent an addition to the amount of money that is available for overseas aid since the cost of such assistance, which cannot be very much, is to be borne by the Vote under the control of the Minister for Overseas Development. Whatever other reservations hon. Members may have on either side of this House with regard to this Bill, I would have thought that that Clause at least would meet with unqualified approval.
It is strange that a statutory provision of this kind should be necessary in order to make that permissible. I suppose this points to the fact that one of the difficulties that have dogged nationalised industries for some 20 years is that whenever one of them needs to enlarge the scope of its activities that cannot be done by any internal method but must necessarily mean recourse to this House. Whatever view one may hold about the need for scrutiny and supervision of nationalised industries—and I would be second to none in believing it most important that they should be made as responsible to this House as possible—I should not have thought that a small matter of that kind really ought to have to go through this kind of processing in order to be made possible.
I suppose one can say the same to some extent of the members of the Board. One of the Clauses of this quite short Bill also requires a statutory provision in order to add to their number. When one compares this with the position of a public company which can make alterations in its objects and aims quite simply by internal process, it seems to be strange that this should be necessary. This Bill is mainly concerned with the question of borrowing powers. I have some sympathy with those who claim that we sanction borrowing powers with very


little debate and subject them to only intermittent scrutiny. I suspect that the right remedy for that in many ways would be for this House not only to keep more rational hours and avoid midnight debates but also to spread its activities over a more reasonable period of the year.
This is not the time to debate the procedure of this House but one can say in pasing at least that if we conducted our business in the same way as occupations outside this House and did not have three-monthly interludes and so much of our time punctuated by recesses we would not need to discuss matters at late hours and early hours and would be able to discuss them more frequently, and I suspect a great deal more efficiently, than they are sometimes discussed at the moment.
I approve of the extension of the borrowing powers, although I am bound to say that I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) that there would be no objection to a nationalised industry issuing equity shares—that may come as a surprise to the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Peter Emery)—provided that they carried no voting powers and that they were like "A" class voting shares at present permissible under the Companies Act. Then there would be no derogation from the ownership of the title of the State in the nationalised industry. This would provide the industry with the flexibility which sometimes is lacking in the system of borrowing which prevails. There is no reason why this should not be run in double harness with the borrowing which exists under this and the previous system.
Hon. Members should be prepared to consider all methods of financing nationalised industries and not be unduly hostile to that kind of device. However, none of us can say that there is any real objection to the extension of these borrowing powers. I welcome them very much, particularly in relation to the North Sea gas proposals. As the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) said, this is an exciting new departure in our technological advance. We should all rejoice in the fact that this is the first major

indigenous resource which has come to hand for many years.
I hope that the Ministry of Power will give thought to setting up its own exploitation system so that it will be less given to deferring to the power of the international oil companies and not be unduly worried if they are being frightened off, as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) seemed to suggest. We know that there is a world surplus of oil. We know that oil resources are still being discovered, and we may well find that our bargaining power in relation to international oil concerns improves.
There is obviously a conflict of interest between the oil companies as producers from sources outside this country and their undertakings in the North Sea. Of the two, it is obvious that they are more likely to take heed of their main sources of wealth, which are outside this country, which, in many cases, are in the sterling area and, in many instances, situated in chronically unstable countries. Therefore, we should be much more inclined to put ourselves in a position to exploit these resources ourselves.
Often, nationalised industries have been declining industries, like coal or the railways, or they have been bedevilled by under-capitalisation, like the steel industry. The electricity industry is a modern and expanding nationalised industry of the first magnitude. I should like to see the State come in on the ground floor in relation to this form of nationalised venture. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will say rather more about what we can do by direct exploitation of the resources in the North Sea. Whatever modest contribution they make in the immediate future, they present an exciting future for the country as a whole in years further ahead.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I think that the Minister of Power will be distressed to hear from his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary about the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee), because he said that in his opinion Clauses 5 and 6 were rather unnecessary. I would counsel the Minister and any Member of Parliament not to


have this attitude, which seems to be growing in the party opposite, of becoming a little tired with the Parliamentary process. These are important provisions and I do not wish to see any system, no matter how much the Government may want it, whereby decisions can be made without being brought before the House for approval.
The main part of the Bill is concerned with a great deal of money. In the first part we see a straight extension in borrowing powers of £400 million with an additional £800 million, which can come periodically by order.
The first point I raise is whether this is not too much at this time in our economy, bearing in mind the history of the nationalised industries. It is a sobering thought that since October, 1964, we have had price rises in the public sector of exactly 20 per cent., whereas, if we take a comparable period, the index of household goods has risen by only 7 per cent. In these circumstances there is a need for careful scrutiny at all times of the capital expenditure of the publicly-controlled industries. I, therefore, feel that £400 million is too much to take at one time.
In the debate on the Gas Industry (Borrowing Powers) last year, the former Minister of Power, on the question of natural gas, said:
The total cost will be about £400 million, and over the next five years it will be about £190 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th June, 1967; Vol. 747, c. 985.]
It is clear from these figures that this amendment will cover a considerable period of time—too long, I suggest— before we have Parliamentary scrutiny.
I raise two points. First, I hope that no Member of this House will agree to a major extension of borrowing powers which gives commercial freedom of capital expenditure until we do two things. First, to fully review the pricing policies in the nationalised fuel industries, with particular reference to gas.
I was interested to see what was said in the Evening Standard of 10th May, 1967. This might be of interest to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) who takes a great interest in the amount that we spend on natural gas compared with competing fuels. The headline read,
Gas price may be slashed by a third".

That was the indication at that time. I wonder whether this figure is still true. I doubt it, because things change very dramatically and quickly on the fuel front.
On the other hand, it has changed in another direction. The Parliamentary Secretary, who takes a great deal of interest in the matter, will be aware of the other policy question about which we in Scotland are concerned—namely, the price of gas in Scotland. I am not prepared to give a Second Reading to a Bill which gives freedom to spend £400 million while we have escalation in the differential prices between different areas of the country.
In Written Answer to me on 13th May, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that in the last annual period for which figures are available, 1966–67, the average revenue per therm of the Scottish Gas Board was 27·8d., and the average for the English and Welsh Gas Boards was 22·2d. In other words, the average consumer in Scotland is paying 25 per cent. more for gas compared with the average in England and Wales. If this trend had continued for many years, it would have been one matter; but it has got worse and worse. When I first came to the House I asked the then Minister if he was satisfied with a situation whereby the differential was about 10 per cent. I asked when it became 14 per cent. and I asked again when it became 19 per cent. Now we are at the stage when the price of gas in Scotland is 25 per cent. more than the average for England and Wales, that answer being given in official figures on 13th May. I would suggest in all seriousness that it is an outrage for this Minister or any other to suggest that Scottish Members should give freedom of action for several years to the Gas Board to go merrily on with their policies—and highly efficient I am sure they all are—until there is a reconsideration of the policy of differential fuel prices, which are having such a savage effect on Scottish consumers and Scottish industry.

Mr. Eadie: Is it not true that the cost to industrial gas users in Scotland is cheaper than it is in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Taylor: That is not my information, but I have great respect for the


hon. Gentleman's opinions so I will check on it. That is not the information I was given nor is it what I got from the reports. If this is the case, then for the domestic user the differential must be still greater because the figure I quoted was the average price per therm. I know that the hon. Gentleman always does his homework, and if he is right the differential for the domestic user is even greater.
This is; a serious question which I hope the Minister will reconsider before we approve this Bill.
On the question of electricity, there is the proposal that the South of Scotland and North of Scotland Electricity Boards should be able to borrow money abroad. I would suggest that one of the main reasons why it is necessary for this industry in Scotland to look for money abroad and why it cannot be self-financing is that the Government policies on fuel differential are adding so substantially to their costs. I will quote briefly from the Annual Report of the South of Scotland Electricity Board, published recently, where it is stated on page 3 that:
The average price of coal to the Board is about £1 a ton higher than the average price paid for coal used in electricity generation in England and Wales…
In an article in the Scotsman at about the same time it was said that the differential between the coal prices to the Scottish Electricity Boards and to the English and Welsh ones was between 20s. and 34s. lOd. per ton.
Is the Minister happy with a trend in which the South of Scotland Electricity Board has; to go to the gnomes of Zurich to ask for money which it would not require if we had a reasonable, sensible, just and fair policy of coal prices and differentials? This problem is getting worse and I, for one, am not prepared to approve of the Bill while such a situation continues.
As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) knows, this is not a problem created by this Government. It has existed for many years, but it has been getting worse. When we consider the facts as regards another industry, that in the Benson Report on the steel industry, it was said that:
 if British fuel prices go on climbing as they have over the past ten years, ' some

long-established United Kingdom steelmaking areas—for example, Scotland—may be put in hazard.'
The effect is seen of the policies which are being pursued at the present time and which have been pursued for years, but which are getting worse. I appeal to the Minister, before he goes ahead to ask for such a large sum as this, to reconsider the whole question of differential prices. It is no joke for the Scottish consumer, it is no joke for Scottish industry, and it is rather foolish for the Government to give generous assistance, as they do and as previous Governments have, to Scottish industry if so much is taken away by the present policies of the nationalised industries.
We also see the gas industry looking for money which will be used in connection with making coke and smokeless fuel and we have exactly the same problem of differentials with this. Many of my own constituents in Cathcart—and I am sure this is true of the constituents of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian—have had to convert recently because of smoke control orders. They have been put in the position, encouraged by the Secretary of State for Scotland, with all his enthusiasm, of having to convert freely to the use of smokeless fuel. Yet we have a situation in which the price of that fuel in Scotland has greatly increased as compared with that in England and Wales. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary has heard this on many occasions. I ask him to accept that this is a serious problem for Scotland, which his own figures about the gas industry show is getting worse. The temporary effect of this price increase or the next does not matter a great deal. We know the facts, and the problem is desperately serious, so I hope that, before the Government approve this Measure, they will seriously consider the prices of gas, coal, smokeless fuels, all these products of nationalised industries in Scotland.
I hope that it will be accepted that I am attacking not the Labour Government in particular but a policy which I think is wrong. If we accept the need for differentials, why do we say that Scotland is one area and that there will be a uniform price for gas there? If we accept the implications of an economic price everywhere, there should be different


prices in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness and Stornoway. Surely the time has come to say, "If we have a national industry, let us have a national price, and let the appalling differentials, which are causing so much concern and damage in Scotland, disappear once and for all." I make the Minister a simple offer: if he will accept my views on price differentials, I will accept his Bill.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: Without fear of contradiction, I can say that the Second Reading of this Bill has provided a wide-ranging debate on nearly every aspect of fuel policy. The Opposition Amendment has ensured that certain speeches showing specific concern for the problems of the coal industry have been considered in the context of the Bill when they might not otherwise have been. It is surprising how not one speech has given outspoken support to the Bill. I must declare an interest, in that I am associated with companies concerned with gas, producing heating equipment and many aspects of fuel. These contacts may allow me to speak with some knowledge and perhaps a little authority.
The Conservative case in this debate is practical and clear. We believe in cheap fuel and also welcome the discovery of natural gas, and we want it fully used and exploited to the benefit of the nation, of industry, business and the domestic consumer—and, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), even in Scotland.
However, we say plainly that, in the nation's present financial and economic position, after three and a half years of Socialist Government, a drastic reduction is needed in the level of Government expenditure both above and below the line. We must ensure a greater increase in the overall level of investment in the private sector and, therefore, obviously, a corresponding decrease in the ratio of investment in the public sector. Lastly, we believe that an increasing control and investigation by Parliament of public expenditure and investment should be encouraged rather than limited. It is against these criteria that I wish to judge the debate.
I first of all pay a tribute, which has not been paid yet, to the previous Minis-

ter of Power. Whatever we may say, it took a particularly courageous Minister to introduce this White Paper and it is fair and proper that the House should pay tribute to him. Of course, we did not have a debate on the White Paper. The present Minister said that we have been around this in many ways, and we have, but he and the House must agree that there has not been approval or a full discussion of the electricity, gas or nuclear power concepts of that White Paper. It is with that as a background that this Bill must be considered.
This Bill increases the borrowing power of a single nationalised industry by 100 per cent.—100 per cent. It increases its immediate loan authority by one-third and then, with that sum, allows a standby borrowing of another 50 per cent. of the authorised sum. I have done a little research into this and I do not believe that I can be corrected when I say that this is the biggest single percentage standby which has ever been given. It is not the biggest amount—the electricity industry had that previously; but it is the biggest percentage standby, a 50 per cent. standby. I believe that this is more, in the economic situation, than this Labour Government or any Government ought to ask the House to consider.
We are considering a reasoned Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said he had demanded that the Opposition shall have a reasoned Amendment. I am delighted to say, although he is not here at the moment, that he found himself in very good company. We were ahead of him, and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) had been discussing the exact wording of the Amendment for some while.
However, it is important that it should be made most clear that the reasoned Amendment is not an attack on the gas industry or indeed the electricity industry. The gas industry, after all, over the last five years has been a fast speed example of brilliant marketing, while managerially and industrially what earlier might have been considered a depressed or out-dated industry has resurrected itself, and I believe that it deserves considerable credit and considerable congratulation for what it has achieved.
I should like to attempt to clear up one matter which seems to have been


in doubt during the debate and that is the question of the reserves of natural gas which appear to be evident in the North Sea. As I understand this matter, all the four commercial fields have recoverable reserves estimated by the Gas Council at about 23½ trillion—that is the American figure, which is a million million—cubic feet, enough to maintain an average flow of over 3,000 million cubic feet a day. This is on a depletion of 20 years. It is probable, I believe—and these are the figures which have been used by the Gas Council—that the reserves will last from between 25 to 27 years. In addition to this there are significant discoveries by other companies Signal, Placid and B.P., in addition to the West Sole, Leman Bank, Indefatigable and Hewett fields. It is important to have these figures on the record and they are substantiated by paragraph 13, although not in as great detail, of the White Paper on fuel policy.
I turn to the matter of investment forecasting. This is, after all, the basis of the Bill. If it is possible to forecast future requirements accurately there is no reason why the Bill should not be given a Second Reading. But what are the examples? Let me use one or two.
A Government publication only two and a half years old says quite blandly in paragraph 55 that
throughout the public sector estimates of expenditure represent programmes rather than forecasts.
It goes on to propound that the fixed investment in gas is expected to rise sharply in 1966 and then to remain about the same level for the rest of the decade. The figures are £140 million in 1968, £143 million in 1969 and £149 million in 1970. Although only about 30 months old, those figures have little relevance—indeed, they have no relevance at all—to the arguments now being adduced by the Gas Council.
I admit that the figures come from the National Plan of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), but they show how terrifyingly inaccurate such prognostications can be in only two and a half years. The national growth rate is well below what was indicated in the National Plan, and its estimates are about 150 per cent. out. I accept that they were not predicated on the aspects of natural gas—I have no wish to make a debating point of this—but nobody can

be certain for a period of five to 10 years that there will not be other breaks through in fuel policies which may not put some of this forecasting considerably out of date.

Mr. Gunter: The hon. Gentleman was honourable in declaring his interest at the beginning of his remarks. Following his argument, I, as Minister, am bound to accept what the Phillips company has told me about its forecasts. I think that the company was right and honourable to do that, and I accept them. Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that I must not believe anybody's forecasts?

Mr. Emery: No. I declared my interest and, following the right hon. Gentleman's question, there is, of course, no doubt about the reserve figures and that they are the best which any oil company can give the right hon. Gentleman. I have been questioning whether the investment prognostications made by Ministries—I have given the prognostications in the National Plan—are likely to be as accurate in two or three years' time as they are at the moment. There is proof that they have not been accurate. If I were to pursue some of my personal interests I might be said to be arguing that we should be investing more rather than less. I am trying to think of the national interest and not of any sectional or individual interest.
I return to the question of investment forecasts, with particular reference to the forecasts outlined by the Gas Council and mentioned by the Minister. We see £1,221 million on fixed assets, £276 million on the conversion of consumer appliances, £44 million on loans for Gas Council North Sea prospecting and £63 million on financing and expanding turnover. This gives a total of £1,604 million. On top of that we have present borrowing at 31st March, which is already established, and this brings the figure to £2,667 million. However, we have finance from the Gas Council from its resources of £500 million and from this Bill of £2,400 million. This leaves, on those calculations a figure in hand of £233 million for extra use and not £237 million as the P.R. statement of the Gas Council of 8th May made clear. Nor does it leave a figure of £250 million as suggested in the Ministry of Power's Press Notice No. 5508.
I quote these figures not in an attempt to be clever with small amounts, but to show that we are talking about such vast sums that they can get entirely out of hand. It seems that £4 million here or £13 million there does not matter. It should matter to Parliament and we should pay special attention to the whole subject.
I come to a matter which has not received any attention; overall investment in gas—not just for the Gas Council but for the industry as a whole. The Gas Council's figure of £1,604 million is correct. On top of that we have to begin estimating what private industry will be putting into the development of gas.
On the production, piping and development of the fields and processing, I cannot be more accurate than to say that it will be between £300 million and £500 million. It is impossible to be more accurate over a five-year period. Let us say that it will be about £400 million. On exploration, surely the Gas Council's figure of £44 million can be multiplied by six or seven to get somewhere about £250 million or £300 million. Industry and the piped assets are likely to bring a total figure of £2,400 million to £2,700 million as a necessary investment for North Sea development. Compare that with the overall industrial investment. In the private sector last year it was £3,458 million. In the manufacturing industry, according to the Board of Trade, it was estimated at £1,160 million.
Taking the figures I have given over a five-year period, this means that the overall investment for gas will have to run at about £500 million nationally out of the investment "cake". Is this House absolutely certain that that is the proper level and that we should have as high a level in one industry? I do not know, but we have not debated this. It has not been particularly apparent in the arguments put forward either by the Gas Council or the Government that that high level of investment without overall limited resources is the right and proper amount.
Presumably, we still hold to the Letter of Intent. It was suggested that this year the investment should be left at £1,000 million—one billion as it is termed in the Letter. That makes one wonder whether the Government are getting out of step with what the country can afford at this

moment. This is something which the House has to consider.

Mr. Leadbitter: It is noticeable that the hon. Member is expressing concern about the possibility of the Government getting out of step with investment. The hon. Member is summing up for the Opposition in an important debate. Will he tell the House, after special consideration of this Bill, what his party thinks the level of investment should be.

Mr. Emery: As I am summing up an important debate, I will tell the hon. Member what I think the investment should be. That is in part of my conclusions which he will hear at the end of my speech.
I turn to the question of obsolescence and conservation. I ask the Government whether they have considered fully the factor of conservation. Is the run-down of this natural gas asset at a level at present estimated between 20 and 25 years right? Is it accepted by the House? We have not debated it.

Mr. J. T. Price: It is not accepted by the Gas Council either. That should be on the record. The Gas Council does not postulate a figure anywhere near the figure which the hon. Member has given.

Mr. Emery: I thought the figures I quoted earlier were the Gas Council's figures and that they would be confirmed by the Minister. Would we not require a much smaller capital programme if the reserves were to be run down over a longer period, over 40 years or even more? Would not this allow a better use of existing capital equipment and a more economical rundown of some of our other national assets, which was made so apparent by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), who spoke with such authority on the electricity industry?
On the point of obsolescence made so evident by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), instead of £300 million for plant yet not amortised and which will have to be abolished, will not the total writedown of plant which has not finished its useful life be about £600 million to £700 million? If so, we should be told. It is very important.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) made a most thoughtful and helpful speech. We should pay credit to him for the work he does as Chairman of Sub-Committee B of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) said that he was not concerned about the Bill, because the matter would come forward on a Vote of Supply. I must correct the hon. Gentleman and make it apparent that, if this was on foreign borrowing, which the Bill would allow, there would be no Vote of Supply and his argument would fall.
The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) spoke about outrageously optimistic forecasts. I defend the members of the Gas Council. I believe these forecasts have often been made by the Press and have never been backed by statements made by leaders of the gas industry.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said that he thought that the right place to consider the borrowing powers of the gas industry was not on the Floor of the House but in Committee. He must realise, as a Whip of the Labour Party—[Interruption.]—I mean the Liberal Party. I was thinking that the hon Gentleman had moved over. He must realise that with our present Parliamentary procedures the only way of dealing with this in depth, with all Members able to participate, is on the Floor of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) and the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) were right to discuss the use of rigs in the North Sea. It is important that nobody should be discouraged from continuing with exploration.
I want to ask one direct question which has not been raised. Is any of this borrowing power to be used to increase the manufacturing scope of the Gas Council or of the Gas Boards? It would be possible. Powers exist. I should like a categorical assurance that that will not be so. The strengthening of the Gas Council, which we welcome, was originally suggested by the Select Committee in 1961–62.
I turn to the borrowing powers from abroad.

You cannot go, cap in hand, to the central bankers of Europe … and maintain your freedom of action. … The central bankers will, before long, be demanding that Britain puts her house in order.
That is a quotation that hon. Members opposite might recognise. There has been condemnation of some of these central bankers and perhaps the Left-wing, with which the Parliamentary Secretary had some connection at one time, should be condemning this short-term palliative in the Bill, because that is all it is. It is an ability to obtain extra foreign exchange which will assist our balance of payments today. But in the long term that money must be repaid, and then there will be the opposite effect, a harmful effect on the Exchange Equalisation Account.
Two necessary points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, South—

Sir G. Nabarro: Worcestershire, South.

Mr. Emery: I should think that my hon. Friend may have a shire all unto himself. My hon. Friend pointed out that B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. have foreign capital investment, foreign capital assets and foreign currency earnings.
We must consider the long-term effect. This borrowing by the Socialists is likely to leave a millstone, a hidden depth charge, to upset the balance of payments at some time in the future, when a Conservative Government will have to put it right.
The Minister was all sweet reasonableness in suggesting that we did not divide on this matter. He was described, I think, as a Pickwick. Without meaning to be unkind, I would perhaps describe him as the greatest smiling Parliamentary cherub that we have in the House. But his blandishments fall on very stony ground here. We argue for more Parliamentary control. But he and I know that the control he wishes will only be by an order which could be debated for only 90 minutes.
Too much money, too quickly, with little real financial prospectus showing exactly how it will be used, is our real condemnation of the Bill. What we want is extra borrowing and investment not by order but by a Bill which will allow us to have the necessary Parliamentary control, and that is what our Amendment would do.
I do not believe that any self-respecting bank manager, after the Government's own impoverished pleas, would grant a 100 per cent. increase in a fantastic overdraft of £1,200 million for vast spending over a five-year period without an adequate estimate of likely return. It has been evident from speech after speech that we have not had that.
This practice is precisely what successive Governors of the Bank of England have rightly condemned as the root and branch failure of the Government's economic policy. By granting these borrowing powers we shall relinquish any real further Parliamentary control of this vast amount of spending. Parliament is being asked to underwrite an estimate without an adequate prospectus.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support us in the Lobbies on our reasoned Amendment.

9.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): To some extent I forecast the kind of points that would be raised and did my best to obtain information before the debate. I shall seek to answer as many points, both general and specific, as I can. We shall study the OFFICIAL REPORT and, as it our practice, do our best to reply within the next few days to any points with which I cannot deal now.
I shall try to avoid turning the debate into a screaming match, at any rate from this side of the Dispatch Box.
Several themes have come out in the debate. The main ones have been on the issue of the range of spending, whether it is necessary to authorise so much; the question of Parliamentary and Government control over spending, or what some describe as overspending; the impact on other industries; and the efficiency and capacity of the industry to absorb the gas for which it is planning, and to plan investment policies appropriately.
The last direct question put to me was whether any of the moneys raised under the borrowing powers would be used for manufacturing purposes. I take the question to refer to diversification of manufacture and not necessarily to plant con-

nected with the industry's central activity. The answer is that there is to be no change of policy.
We have had a number of questions on the Scottish position, and I know the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not pursue them all in detail. Whatever views and arguments there might be about postalising prices, it is not correct to repeat so categorically that Scotland is worse off with regard to gas price differentials than all other parts of the country. It is not. At least one other area, the South-Western, has a bigger differential than Scotland. Whatever the merits or demerits of postalisation of prices, it is not correct to assume that if prices were postalised the development areas would benefit. Some might, others would not. I have said this before.
I was congratulated by the hon. Member on a previous occasion when I made this point. For the central subject matter of the debate, natural gas, there will be a postalised price for bulk supply to area boards if that is the correct term to use. I hope we can get at least one little smile from the hon. Member on this point.
A number of questions were put by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) while I was out of the Chamber. Earlier in the debate he quoted evidence given by the Gas Council to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, at paragraph 47. The industry's investment total was £1,221 million for the five years from 1968–69. This is expressed in the evidence as investment in fixed assets. This is the same as on the top of page 15 of the pamphlet, "Investment in Natural Gas", and to that sum must be added: North Sea exploration £44 million; working capital £63 million; conversion of consumers £276 million. These figures make the total of £1,604 million which he queried.
There was another query from the hon. Member on a figure quoted by Sir Henry Jones relating to the cost of conversion per consumer. I understand the figure of £10 relates to a cooker in the context to which he was referring, but there are other costs which have to be added for other kinds of equipment and which are included in the figure of £30. One must take account of industrial and other commercial users whose equipment will also have to be converted, and the cost of


this must be included in the average figure.
To deal with the headings I have given as being the main themes of the debate, the first one is: why the range of expenditure which has been proposed? Merely to meet the past rate of increase in demand for manufactured gas, instead of natural gas from the North Sea, would cost between £200 million and £250 million a year. This is on the basis of an annual rate of increase of 9 per cent. to 10 per cent. in recent years, and a much faster rate of increase which is forecast for future years. There will be a rapid increase, and therefore we must expect a major slice of investment per year. So long as there is a strong demand for gas there must be heavy investment in the industry. With the discovery of North Sea gas the amount of investment has to be increased above £200 million to £250 million a year, but the increase is expected to produce important benefits.
It has been a rather negative debate in spite of the detailed arguments deployed, particularly by hon. Members on the other side. Not enough has been brought out in debate about how the industry is expected to benefit. First, there will be savings in resources used by the gas industry. Secondly, the industry will be supplied with increasing quantities of modern, relatively low-cost fuel, and it will be cheaper. Thirdly, there will be a reduction in the cost of foreign exchange to meet the country's energy needs. These things have been discussed at some length in the White Paper which has been referred to many times this evening, as well as in other speeches and debates in different parts of the country. I am surprised that we still hear statements that are contrary to some of the elementary points which have been established in the White Paper studies.
The next main heading which I drew out of the debate questioned the efficiency of Governmental and Parliamentary control of expenditure. One is guided in the control of expenditure in the gas industry, just as in other industries within the purview of the Department, by the White Paper dealing with the financial obligations of the industries.
The procedure which is followed centres around five general points. Each year, the Department discuss in detail the

capital expenditure for a period five years ahead on a rolling programme. We fix the upper limit of expenditure for two years ahead having examined the programmes of capital investment and projects being put forward. The Department base borrowings on reasoned estimates submitted by the industry each year. The Department must be kept informed of capital being invested or proposed to be invested in projects which are considered to have too low a return in relation to the objects laid down in the White Paper. It is our task, in overseeing the industry's responsibilities, to ensure that its organisation scrutinised capital expenditure properly.
I know that that is dealing with it in a few sentences, but I ask hon. Members to accept that whatever inadequacies they may feel in the extent to which Parliament can oversee massive expenditures involved in a modern State, whether it be what is before us now or on other occasions, the Department does a very thorough job. We have personnel travelling all over the country each year investigating these matters with the boards of the various industries under our responsibility. To talk as if this one debate tonight is the full extent of our supervision of expenditure is misleading. I am sure that hon. Members do not intend it to be so.
The importance of Parliamentary control or scrutiny was stressed by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), who made much play with the £237 million contingency margin included in the figures before us. The borrowing powers in the Bill aim at meeting the industry's needs for about five years. Even in the most stable circumstances for the industry, it is difficult to forecast borrowing needs accurately, and some margin for contingencies is reasonable and common practice in small as well as big industry, public or private.
As the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said, at present there is more than unusual uncertainty. That is no reason for cutting down on one's margin for contingencies. I would have thought that it is a reason for making sure that provision is made for items which may be necessary, always with the proviso that there is adequate Government scrutiny and control in the approvals and permissions given.
The uncertainty is affecting the industry, and that must affect its long term investment plans. We do not know the full extent of the amount of North Sea gas which will become available, and I will have more to say about that in a moment. Markets cannot be known fully, nor can beach prices, despite the fact that some have been fixed—one important one quite recently. The industry does not yet know how peak demands will be met when natural gas comes on stream fully from the North Sea. There must be a margin to allow for changes in the pace, direction and content of the capital investment for the industry in the years ahead.
That does not mean that the money will be used automatically. The Minister must ask the House to approve an Order raising the borrowing limit. He will have to justify a new figure for the next three years to the House. If less than £800 million becomes necessary, a smaller sum will be proposed.
This is not the first time that this has happened. It has happened with the electricity industry in the past and with other industries with which Parliament is concerned.
The limit in the Bill is on borrowings over about five years and does not directly control either borrowing or expenditure in the next year or two. If the Opposition wish to question the industry's plans for expenditure on borrowing, they can do so by debate on the annual White Paper on loans made by the National Loans Fund, which shows the authorised borrowing or expenditure for the year, or they can do so by debating the industry's annual report and accounts.
There are always other occasions on which there can be Parliamentary scrutiny of this kind of expenditure. My right hon. Friend's request for an immediate increase of only £400 million is in order that Parliament may have an earlier opportunity than it would otherwise have done to scrutinise the expenditure and policy of the industry because of the kind of uncertainties to which hon. Members have referred.
I have been asked about foreign borrowing. This power is being taken at the request of the two industries concerned so that, if opportunities arise of borrowing more advantageously than from the

National Loans Fund, they will be able to take advantage of them. In so far as the national interest is involved in incurring obligations in foreign exchange, it would be covered by the kind of provisions that such borrowing must be on terms and from persons specified by the Minister. Again, there will be detailed control. Just to give the authority does not mean that the money will be raised. This provision is designed to remove a statutory obstacle to such action should it ever be considered desirable, as is the case with the other part of the Bill dealing with the removal of obstacles to assisting foreign Governments in technical work. This, too, does not mean that the money or the services will be provided. It merely gives power for them to be provided if the industries so wish.
Much has been made of the uncertainty of the rate of absorption with regard to the supply of natural gas. Despite the continued doubts expressed or implied in the debate, the known reserves—not those yet to be investigated and covered—are estimated to be sufficient to provide 3,000 million cubic feet per day and more available on beach to this country in the years beyond 1971. It may well go above that figure. The plans that are now in hand and the powers which are being put forward in the Bill are in order that this work may proceed and that the capacity of the industry should be to take on full steam up to something like 4,000 million cubic feet per day.
Whether or not this will be absorbed into the economy is a matter of marketing and not a matter of investment power and authority for laying down the framework by which one can use the gas. This will be decided from time to time on the Minister's authority, subject to the kind of Parliamentary scrutiny I have referred to as the system and the markets develop. But we know that we can reach the figure I have quoted by the end of this decade. This is hard fact and I hope that there will be no further doubts about this.

Mr. Emery: Supposition.

Mr. Freeson: I wish the hon. Gentleman would not throw the word "supposition" across the Table. He himself confirmed what I am saying in his own speech. This is not supposition. These are known reserves. What may be supposition is how much capacity may become available with further investigation.

Mr. Emery: What I was saying was supposition—and it is—is how much we can market by 1970. That is not a matter of fact. This may be a market report and on the most extensive investigation but it would be wrong to call it fact. It is supposition.

Mr. Fireeson: I had hoped that it would not be necessary to state the obvious. One cannot market what one has not got. If we want supplies on tap to the country, we have to have the grid and plant. We cannot sell the gas if we have not got it. We have to have investment powers to get the grid into operation and all the servicing required to get natural gas into the country so that it can be marketed. This will be an evolving and growing policy. It will be subject to control by the industry and the Government and will be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny as I have indicated.
This kind of playing around with words, coming to the House and saying: "We are in favour of natural gas being discovered—" which is rather an obvious thing to say, "we are in favour of bringing it ashore and using it in the economy", and then arguing against the means by which it can be done—this is what we have been getting from hon. Members opposite. We will not turn this into a series of debating points. There is a job to be done and we want the powers in order that the job may be done. That is why we come to Parliament.
The question of the rate of absorption must be borne in mind in relation to the kind of prices that will be obtained. I have been asked whether we are quite sure that it is right to have as rapid a rate of absorption of natural gas as we can possibly get. The answer is "Yes", and anyone who has studied the White Paper will have seen the kind of examination given to this question—the kind of factors we took into account in drawing this policy conclusion. I have mentioned one important factor, not the most important one, namely the question of the price one obtains. The more rapidly one can absorb this natural gas into the economy, the more satisfactory will be the price level obtained by the Gas Council, and in turn by the ultimate consumers, domestic and industrial.
If the gas industry is to increase by two, three or four times over the years

ahead on the lines I have suggested, the price will have to be attractive by the standard of the prices of other fuels. We think that North Sea gas will prove a much cheaper fuel. We have said so in the White Paper, and we stand by that. Some boards have already made small reductions in prices in areas which have already been converted to natural gas. Similar reductions may be made in other areas as conversion proceeds. It will be four years or so before the new system of supply is well-established, and most consumers are converted—and I hope the Opposition too.
Before then there is a great deal of investment which has to be financed. Existing towns' gas supply has to be kept going as we move over to natural gas. This will prevent sweeping price reductions in the immediate future, but one thing is certain: the gas will be cheaper than manufactured gas and there will be foreign exchange savings to the country. In the next few years the real beneficiary is likely to be industry in so far as special contracts can be negotiated for large-scale demand with a cut rate factor or on a seasonal or interruptible basis, but ultimately consumers will benefit through prices which are lower absolutely or in relation to other fuels. In real terms we are certain that there will be a reduction over the years. It will not take place until we are fully on stream into the new national grid.
Hon. Members have talked about the impact of natural gas on other fuels. It is bound to have an impact, but it should not be exaggerated. We estimated in the White Paper that by 1970 the use of North Sea gas would be equivalent to about 5 per cent. of the total energy needs of the country. This represents about 17 million tons of coal equivalent, which is in turn 1,300 million cubic feet a day. Even by 1975, assuming that additional discoveries raise availability to the 4,000 million cubic feet I referred to earlier, its share will only be about 15 per cent.
Natural gas is coming into an expanding and changing energy market. Coal, which has been referred to, is already being displaced by oil in the gas industry. The main effect of the North Sea gas discoveries is to provide another indigenous fuel as an alternative to oil, displacing coal. Members have spoken


of the consequences of this to the coal industry. I want to stress, as we have done on previous occasions, that most natural gas will go to the premium markets where it will mainly displace oil.
I hope that the hon. Lady will not mind my saying it, but it was quite wrong, particularly at this time in the light of the industry, for her to raise further unnecessary anxieties in the coal industry and the coal communities. This has been made perfectly clear in the past. The use of natural gas in power stations was also touched upon. In this connection I can confirm what has been said earlier, that there has been this experimental conversion at Hams Hall power station and there has been an application to undertake a similar conversion at the power station at South Denes. These applications will be considered in the light of the criteria laid down in the White Paper for matters of this kind.
Lastly, I would like to turn to the general implications that came from many of the speeches we have had, and which I have found very regrettable. I suppose that it is understandable that in a debate on an Amendment of the kind we have had, dealing with large sums of public money against a background of many years of built-in prejudice against public industries, we should have the kind of negative carping comments made by a number of hon. Members opposite. I want to make clear that in my view whatever room there is for improvement —and undoubtedly there is—the Gas Industry has nothing of which it need be ashamed with regard to its record in productivity and changing its managerial techniques.
There was a constant theme throughout the speeches from the other side of the House during the course of the debate which gave the impression that we have here an industry which is not doing its job properly, is full of uncertainty and is incapable. This, whether hon. Gentlemen opposite intended it or not, was the kind of impression given by some speeches. This industry like the coal and electricity industries has a good record with regard to efficiency. It is playing an important part in modernising Britain's

economy. It is now handling an exciting new revolution in introducing North Sea gas which will have major implications for domestic and industrial consumers. This industry has already pulled itself up by its bootstraps, changing from coal carbonisation to oil conversion in a few years and carving out for itself an important new place in the energy economy in the last few years, after a time when many people had described it as a dying industry.
Over the last six years its manpower productivity has gone up by 7 per cent. per year and the forecast is that it will increase by 15 per cent. a year over the next five years. Major improvements in productivity have been made with a much smaller labour force. There has been a reduction from 140,000 to 124,000 in the total number of personnel within the industry. I could go on to list a whole series of other things in the computer field, in management techniques, organisation, supply and services to consumers, market research and a whole range of things in which this industry is "on the ball".
Whatever improvements need to be made, we as a Department, the Gas Council and the N.B.P.I., on behalf of the Government generally, are looking at further ways in which the industry can be improved and of helping the industry to improve its organisation and methods. These are the kind of things we should be trying to bring out from time to time rather than constantly carping against the industry.
This is the kind of thing that is also to be brought out in regard to the great campaign which the industry is waging to bring natural gas into the economy of the country. There has been some commendation this evening for the rôle which the exploring companies in the North Sea have played in this whole business. I do not fall behind anybody so far as that is concerned but due and excellent credit should be given for the job that has been done by the gas industry itself. It has a good record in this as it has in other things and it should be given the opportunity to get on with the job on which it has embarked so that we can switch over to natural gas fully by the early 1970s.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 210.

Division No. 157.]
AYES
 [10.0 p.m. 


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gower, Raymond
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant, Anthony
Nott, John


Astor, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Awdry, Daniel
Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Grieve, Percy
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Percival, Ian


Balniel, Lord
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pink, R. Bonner


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pounder, Rafton


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Prior, j. M. L.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Francis


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Boardman, Tom
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bossom, Sir Clive
Higgins, Terence L.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hiley, Joseph
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brewis, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Ridsdale, Julian


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holland, Philip
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hordem, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hunt, John
Royle, Anthony


Burden, F. A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Russell, sir Ronald


Campbell, Gordon
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Silvester, Frederick


Clegg, Walter
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Cooke, Robert
Kirk, Peter
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Corfield, F. V.
Kitson, Timothy
Speed, Keith


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stainton, Keith


Crowder, F. P.
Lane, David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Currie, G. B. H.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Temple, John M.


Dance, James
MacArthur, Ian
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McMaster, Stanley
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Maginnis, John E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Doughty, Charles
Maude, Angus
Vickers, Dame Joan


Drayson, C. B.
Mawby, Ray
Wall, Patrick


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walters, Dennis


Eden, Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ward, Dame Irene


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Webster, David


Emery, Peter
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Errington, Sir Eric
Miscampbell, Norman
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Eyre, Reginald
Monro, Hector
Wills, Sir Cerald (Bridgwater)



Farr, John
Montgomery, Fergus
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fisher, Nigel
More, Jasper
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Worsley, Marcus


Fortescue, Tim
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wright, Esmond


Foster, Sir John
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wylie, N. R.


Gibson-Watt, David
Murton, Oscar



Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Goodhew, Victor
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and




Mr. Humphrey Atkins.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Brooks, Edwin
Dickens, James


Albu, Austen
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Doig, Peter


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Driberg, Tom


Allen, Scholefield
Brown,Bob(N'c'tie-upon-Tyne,W.)
Dunnett, Jack


Anderson, Donald
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Archer, Peter
Buchan, Norman
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cant, R. B.
Eadie, Alex


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Chapman, Donald
Ellis, John


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Coe, Denis
English, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Coleman, Donald
Ennals, David


Barnett, Joel
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)


Baxter, William
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Beaney, Alan
Dalyell, Tarn
Faulds, Andrew


Bence, Cyril
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bennett, James, (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Blackburn, F.

Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ford, Ben


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Forrester, John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Delargy, Hugh
Freeson, Reginald


Booth, Albert
Dempsey, James
Galpern, Sir Myer


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dewar, Donald
Gardner, Tony


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Gourlay, Harry




Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Richard, Ivor


Gregory, Arnold
Mackintosh, John P.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rose, Paul


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mapp, Charles
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marks, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert


Hamling, William
Marquand, David
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hannan, William
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Harper, Joseph
Mendelson, J. J.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian
Skeffington, Arthur


Haseldine, Norman
Millan, Bruce
Slater, Joseph


Hazell, Bert
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Small, William


Heffer, Eric S.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Snow, Julian


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Spriggs, Leslie


Homer, John
Moyle, Roland
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Albert
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Howie, W.
Neal, Harold
Stonehouse, John


Hoy, James
Newens, Stan
Swingler, Stephen


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Ogden, Eric
Taverne, Dick


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Malley, Brian
Thornton, Ernest


Hunter, Adam
Oram, Albert E.
Tinn, James


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Orbach, Maurice
Tomney, Frank


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Orme, Stanley
Urwin, T. W.


Janner, Sir Barnett
Oswald, Thomas
Varley, Eric G


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Paget, R. T.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn, Charles
Wallace, George


Kelley, Richard
Pardoe, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lawson, George
Park, Trevor
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Leadbitter, Ted
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Weitzman, David


Ledger, Ron
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wellbeloved, James


Lee, John (Reading)
Pavitt, Laurence
Whitaker, Ben


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Loughlin, Charles
Pentland, Norman
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Lubbock, Eric
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


McBride, Neil
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


McCann, John
Price, William (Rugby)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


MacColl, James
Probert, Arthur
Woof, Robert


MacDermot, Niall
Rankin, John
Yates, Victor


Macdonald, A. H.
Rees, Merlyn



McGuire, Michael
Reynolds, G. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp;Crom'ty)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Mr. Alan Fitch and Mr. J. D. Concannon.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 39 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading) and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the Proceedings on the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords] and on the Town and Country Planning Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed. —[Mr. Gunter.]

Orders of the Day — GAS AND ELECTRICITY [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the statutory limits imposed on the amounts outstanding in respect of borrowing by the Gas Council and Area Gas Boards; to provide for the borrowing by the Electricity Council, the Scottish Electricity Boards and the Gas Council of money in foreign currency, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) such increases in the sums falling to be paid out of or into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund as may result from provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(a) increasing to £2,400 million the limit imposed on the aggregate amount out-

standing in respect of borrowings by the Gas Council or Area Gas Boards; or
(b) consequentially, increasing the sums that may be advanced to the Gas Council under section 2 of the Electricity and Gas Act 1963;

(2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required to fulfil any guarantee by the Treasury of the principal of and interest on securities issued by the Electricity Council, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, the South of Scotland Electricity Board or the Gas Council by virtue of any provision of the said Act of the present Session authorising the borrowing of foreign currency by the issue of securities;
(3) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums repaid to the Treasury by virtue of any provision of the said Act of the present Session in respect of sums falling within the last foregoing paragraph.—[Mr. Freeson.]

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.

Clause 13.

NEW PROVISION AS TO ENFORCEMENT NOTICES.

10.11 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Nial MacDermot): I beg to move Amendment 23, in page 11, line 22, at end insert:
(3) Where an enforcement notice relates to a breach of planning control consisting in—

(a) the carrying out without planning permission of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land; or
(b) the failure to comply with any condition or limitation which relates to the carrying out of such operations and subject to which planning permission was granted for the development of that land; or
(c) the making without planning permission of a change of use of any building to use as a single dwelling-house,
it may be served only within the period of four years from the date of the breach.
Will it be convenient to discuss with this, Mr. Speaker, the four Amendments to the Amendment?

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not quite certain whether you have selected all the Amendments to the Minister's Amendment and, if so, whether you would permit a Division on any of them. We would wish to divide on the fourth Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I have not selected formally any of the four Amendments which are to be taken with this particular Amendment, but he has made representations to me and I am willing to allow a Division on the Amendment which he chooses, which will be the fourth, I understand.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Is it in the best interests of the House that the news is running round that the Government have

decided to keep the House until five o'clock in the morning to discuss these matters? I do not feel that it is in the best interests of the House that this sort of thing should happen.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. MacDermot: May I hasten to assure the hon. Member and the House that the Government have decided nothing of the sort. We shall be delighted to complete this business by midnight, if we have the co-operation of the House. It may take a little longer.

Mr. Page: That is for the Opposition to decide.

Mr. MacDermot: I hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) say that it is for the Opposition to decide how long they wish to debate these matters, and I quite accept that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing the Town and Country Planning Bill and an Amendment.

Mr. MacDermot: Mr. MacDermot rose—

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacDermot: No, we want to make progress.
The Amendment is to meet an undertaking given in Committee to confine the abolition of the four-year rule on enforcement notices to those cases in which the mischief is established. I undertook to restore the four-year rule in the case of enforcement notices relating to any breach of planning control consisting in the carrying out of building or any other operations on land for a change to residential use.
10.15 p.m.
One slight qualification has been introduced to which attention is called in the first of the Opposition Amendments, and that is that paragraph (c) refers to a change of use to use as a single dwelling house. The reason for this is that changes of use to multi-occupation can have undesirable social as well as planning consequences. They come within the general mischief in that they are often difficult for the planning authority to


detect and I understand that there have in practice, been cases of this kind of development in which the four-year rule has been a barrier, preventing the planning authorities from exercising the control which is patently desirable on social as well as planning grounds. This is the sort of abuse which can lead to an area's deterioration into a slum or near slum and I hope that the House will agree that this is a proper limitation.
The second Amendment would include in the kinds of unauthorised development to which the four-year rule would continue to apply a change to a use not inconsistent with the use of that building as noted in the valuation list. It is difficult to see what the wording means, but it seems to refer to a minor change of use, which should be treated more leniently than a material change. If so, that is adequately covered by the Use Classes Order, but perhaps we can hear something about that. In addition, entries in the valuation list can become out of date between valuations and might not reflect current use.
The third Amendment aims to spell out what is meant by the words "date of the breach" and I must advise the House that it is unnecessary. There is no similar definition in Section 45 of the 1962 Act, which contains the four-year rule, and it has long been established that the four years run from the date of the contravention.
We would oppose the last Amendment, on which we have been told the Opposition's intention. The whole purpose of this abolition of the four-year rule would be largely defeated if we substituted for it a six-year rule.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: First of all I should like to thank the Minister for the concessions he has made in the sense that he has tried to meet some of the objections which were made to the Bill, objections which were fully debated in the Standing Committee. He has met objections which he had himself considered as existing, although at the time of the Standing Committee he had not yet put them into legislative form. I think it is fair to say that the Minister from the very outset of the debate on this problem said that this presented
one of the more difficult problems in the Bill." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 12th March. 1968; c. 354.]

Therefore, the House will forgive me if I take a little time to outline the problem and indicate the views held by this side of the House on this problem.
The principal Planning Act provides that if an enforcement notice is served by a local planning authority in respect of a breach of the development plan, because unauthorised development or a change of use has taken place, that enforcement notice cannot be effective if served after a four-year period. This follows what is an underlying principle in our legal system—and, indeed, I would venture to say, all legal systems— namely, that there must be a degree of stability and finality in the law, and that when a de facto situation becomes established it should not remain into infinity at risk of being upset.
Therefore, we have in our law of contract a rule that if a claim of breach of a contract is not made within six years the person complaining of that breach has lost all remedy at law; the situation has existed for a period of time and the law deems that after that period of time has expired there must be finality to the question. We have similar provisions in our law of torts. When someone complains that he has suffered a civil injury at the hands of another then there must be finality in that situation and the person alleged to have committed the injury should not be at risk into infinity. The same principle is extended into our law on property. A man can come and squat on somebody else's land and enjoy it for 12 years and after that he will be deemed to be the owner; he will have acquired the ownership by adverse possession. Also in law rights of way, rights of light, rights to air can be acquired over other people's property if they have been enjoyed for a period of 20 years without complaint or legal process having been brought. It is considered that there must be finality at some point in time.
This general principle which is found in all aspects of our legal system was brought into town planning procedures also, and it is for that reason that we have the four-year rule whereby if somebody develops property or changes the user of property contrary to the development plan then the local authority has three years in which to upset that situation. If it did not exercise its rights to


serve an enforcement notice then there was finality and the individual could continue to enjoy his development or his change of use without any risk at all at law. We feel that this is something which should continue in our system of law in town planning matters.
The Minister, in the Standing Committee, said that there were two factors why he did not wish this to be so. The first factor was that of concealment; the second was that which he called intensification. On concealment he gave the example of someone converting a room in a house into an office—behind net curtains, to use his own phrase. He felt that it would be wrong, where this happened, for the local authority to be debarred after a period of four years from taking any action.
On intensification, he gave the example where someone could leave one or two items of scrap metal lying in a field, say that that gave the right to use the field as a dumping ground and, after the four years had expired, to suddenly turn it into a scrap metal yard. It was felt in Standing Committee that both those matters were over-exaggerated. In any case, one must always weigh up the factors posited by the Minister against the other principle—the desirability of finality—and a judgment must be exercised as to which is the most important.
On concealment, there are already in our legal system principles that the Minister could invoke and could incorporated into the planning law. He could say that the four-year period of limitation should not run if there has been concealment, if there has been an element of fraud, and that the period should run only from the time when the local authority actually knew of the breach or ought to have known of it. This is something well established in our legal system, and particularly in the law of tort.
On the question of intensification, here again the Minister could simply have dealt with the matter on the de minimis principle—by saying that where there is a lump or two of iron in a field, then that is not deemed to change the user, and that a change takes place only when there is a substantial use contrary to the established existing use, and this would have met the question of intensification.
These are solutions to which the Minister has apparently not directed his mind. I concede that this would lead to greater complications from the point of view of Parliamentary drafting in that longer Clauses would be needed, but one would have thought that to exclude concealment and intensification along the lines I have proposed would have been a far better way than to abolish, virtually in its entirity, the concept that there must be a statutory limit beyond which rights cannot be infringed or rights that have been assumed cannot be taken away.
It is for this reason that our fourth Amendment to the Government Amendment proposes that a six-year period of limitation should apply to each and every case not covered by the Minister's Amendments. We are adopting the period that the law recognises for breach of contract and most civil injuries in the realm of the law of tort. This period has been found to be most convenient and equitable and there is no reason why it should not be incorporated in the Bill.
If finality of this kind is not incorporated, what are the likely consequences? There is the danger that local planning authorities will not do their work properly. They will not be as diligent as they might be to discover changes of uses and developments which have taken place in breach of their plan. If there is no time limit on them, they might be content to let a situation ride without doing anything about it until, perhaps, questions of compulsory purchase and compensation arise, and then decide to use this rule to avoid paying a higher degree of compensation. If they used it for that purpose, to allow it to be permissive for change of user and to exercise it only when questions of compensation arose would be inequitable. This could be a danger into which the Minister might lead us.
10.30 p.m.
Another question arising if there is no finality relates to transactions in land where the change of user or a development has taken place in contravention of a development plan. This was brought out in Committee. Conveyancing difficulties were raised with the Minister, but he intended to discount them. I have a great regard for the Minister of State. When he was practising as a distinguished member of the Bar, I valued his opinions


and advice very much, but on property matters he might listen to some hon. Members on this side of the House as perhaps we are a little more familinar with the day to day problems which arise.
The Minister said that as far as he saw the problem it was a transitional one. He said:
The reference to a date in 1963 is made so that anyone who has achieved protection by four-year user will continue to enjoy it.
He said that the problem will arise only where a change has taken place after December, 1963. I invite him to look at the situation in 15 or 20 years' time, assuming that this legislation in its present form goes on to and remains on the Statute Book.
In 15 or 20 years' time, how can a purchaser of property be satisfied that the four-year period expired before 21st Dec-cember, 1963, and not on the 22nd or 23rd December, 1963? Is he to be satisfied with a statutory declaration? If so, who is to make to make the statutory declaration in 15 or 20 years' time? The property may have changed hands several times. Deaths may have taken place. It would be virtually impossible in very many cases for a practising solicitor to satisfy himself that the change had been saved by the four-year rule prior to December, 1963.
What is more, the burden of proof as between the owner of the land and the local planning authority will be on the person seeking to establish the user. Practitioners will find this problem wellnigh insurmountable. I think the experience will be that further legislation will be required to correct the anomalies which are bound to arise if the Minister remains set on his present course. For this reason I ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to support, if necessary in the Division Lobby, the Amendment to the Government Amendment concerning the establishment of the six-year rule.
Paragraph (a) of the Minister's Amendment refers to
the carrying out without planning permission of building, engineering, mining or other operations".
I assume that this is designed to meet the comment of the Minister when he said in Committee:
It is not that people secretly put up a building. One can see a building when it is

put up."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 12th March, 1968, c. 355.]
For that reason, the Minister has presumably decided that a local authority should know that a building is going up and there should not be uncertainty into infinity: the local planning authority should be required to act within a given period.
If that is the Minister's reason, why as long as four years? In a case where a building is going up, the local authority should be required to act more expeditiously than that. A six-month period or a 12-month period would be appropriate.
In paragraph (b) the Minister wishes to retain the four-year period where there has been a
failure to comply with any condition or limitation which relates to the carrying out of such operations and subject to which planning permission was granted for the development of that land".
I again assume that the Minister's reason is that where a local planning authority has granted planning permission subject to conditions and a development takes place under that permission, the planning officers of the authority should be alive to see that the development is taking place in conformity with the permission that has been granted—in other words, that there should be some inspection whilst the development is taking place or immediately it is completed so that the authority can be satisfied that all has been done as it should have been done. If so, again why wait for as long as four years before serving an enforcement notice? This argues for a six-months or a 12-months notice, not a four-year one. I ask the Minister to reconsider his Amendment.
Paragraph (c) says:
that making without planning permission of a change of use of any building to use as a single dwelling-house.
This is subject to our Amendment that "single dwelling-house" should be altered to "residential use". We seek to do this for a number of reasons. First, this is not the language that the Minister used in Committee: he did not speak of a single dwelling-house. He said:
I should be content to leave it also for a very large class of change of use, namely, change of use to residential user. There are


two reasons: first, obviously there cannot be concealment; secondly, of its nature it is not likely to be offensive or to lead to complaint." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 12th March, 1968; c. 357.]
Therefore, the Minister has not followed his undertaking.
There is no such class use in the Planning Acts as a single dwelling-house. The class use is residential use. We therefore fault the Minister for trying to create a novel class use without legislating in the appropriate manner by making an amendment to the appropriate legislation. For this reason, we contend that the Government Amendment may well be bad.
I return to the reasons the Minister gave in Committee for being prepared to permit residential use or, for that matter, a single dwelling-house. He said that he had no objection to the four-year rule remaining because obviously there could not be concealment. Why must there be more or less concealment for residential use than for single occupation? Is the Minister suggesting that there can be more concealment for multi-occupation than for single occupation?

Mr. MacDennot: I should have thought that it is very clear that if a building is used for residential purposes it is fairly readily observable, but one does not know how many people are living there. Experience has shown that it has not been possible to control what have been breaches of existing planning control of this kind owing to the provisions of the four-year rule.

Mr. Rossi: I concede at once that multi-occupation, particularly in our running twilight areas, is a great social evil which must be cured, but I suggest that it must be cured by redevelopment plans by housing associations or local authorities. The right way to deal with that problem would be to strengthen the local authorities' powers under the Housing Acts. The Minister is creating bad law, so far as a Statute can do that. He is departing from existing class use, and I stress that he is also departing from his undertaking to us. This is a rather serious matter. Multi-occupation may be treated in other ways under other legislation. I believe that the recent White Paper has something to say

about problems of multi-occupation and overcrowding.
I ask that Minister to consider the case of a shop with store rooms over it, all housed in one building. If the shopkeeper decides to change the user of part of the premises for residential accommodation for one or two members of his staff, he will be in breach of this provision. He will not be protected by the four-year rule. They are housed within one building, he is creating residential accommodation, and yet he is not protected by it. I ask the Minister to consider the further ramifications that the restriction he has put on his undertaknig might well have.
The Minister asked for an explanation of our second Amendment. If a local authority has noted in its rating lists a use class for a property its planning committee should be deemed to know what the user is, and therefore should not be entitled to serve an enforcement notice. It would be real lethargy on the part of a planning authority if it was not aware for a period of more than four years of what was in its own rating lists.
Our third Amendment is to give some certainty as to the date from which the breach of the four-year period shall be deemed to run. By their very nature, these breaches are continuing matters, and some point of time must be given when the breach shall be deemed to start. We suggest the commencement of the operations, the failure or the change.
For those reasons, I ask the Minister to reconsider the whole matter.

10.45 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I hope that the Minister will look at our fourth Amendment again. This should not be left just as an argument between lawyers. There are practical considerations here. There should be a period. I think that six years is too long. Obviously my hon. and right hon. Friends had a compromise figure in mind in order to get some support from the Government. Three or four years would perhaps be more practical and fair. [Interruption.] Except for the cases outlined in the Government's Amendment, there will be no period at all.
Take the case of an hotel where there is some difference of view between the


planning authority and the owners. Suppose that the owners want to turn the basement of the hotel into a sauna bath and that it is suggested that use of the basement for a sauna bath may be a change of user for which they should get permission. The owners may argue that the installation of a new bath is not a change of user. A sauna bath has not been defined as being any different from an ordinary bath. There is, therefore, a difference of view as to whether there is a change of user which should carry planning permission.
I know of cases in which the matter is left in abeyance. A local planning authority, having searched its books, cannot see that it would at the moment be in order in pursuing its insistence that planning permission be obtained on the basis that there has been a change of user of the basement. But it has not conceded that it is in order. If it does not pursue the point and the matter is left in abeyance, it could well be that, under some ruling which may be made that sauna baths should be recognised within the planning vocabulary, a sauna bath would be deemed to be a change of user.
I give that as an example because it is one which I have in mind, but no doubt similar anomalies and borderline cases exist throughout the country. I think that it is e very sound argument in support of the case that a period should be laid down after which owners know they are safe. That would be fair and practical.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) thought that the Government Amendment as it stood would turn a situation of what he described as uncertainty into infinity. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) took up the same point in the example which he gave of the sauna bath in an hotel. I entirely accept the need for machinery for establishing certainty in such cases, and it would be intolerable if people were left in a situation of uncertainty. I accept the fairness of what he said about the importance of looking at the conveyancing aspect. In Committee, I made it plain that I had no pretensions to conveyancing knowledge, but I was alive to the serious practical problems of the matter.
We will come later to Amendment 212 on the Order Paper, dealing with this aspect, which has been promoted by the Law Society. I have already given an undertaking that we must cover the point, and there must be an adequate procedure. If we are to have this open-ended enforcement procedure, a person who may be in doubt as to whether or not he is covered must be able to apply to the planning authority and get certification. This will arise particularly when a person conveys property. He wants to be sure he is giving a good title, the purchaser wants to be sure of getting a good title, and there must be certification procedure. So the Amendments are to be read together.
I do not want to comment on suggestions which are not the subject of the Amendment, or alternative words, but I would like to comment on a general attitude which has been described suggesting that planning authorities were not as diligent as they ought to be in detecting breaches of planning control. It's asked, "Why wait for four years?" I reject the idea however that we should turn planning authorities into a police force on planning. Planning officers are very busy men, many of them are overworked, and they have very important planning functions to perform. It is not for them to go chasing around or, as I said in Committee, "riding round on bicycles" trying to find out whether there have been breaches in planning control. That is not their function.
We want an effective system to see that planning control is observed, and is not abused and evaded by people who just are law-breakers. We do not think it right to introduce the machinery of the criminal law in order to deal with the situation; no one is suggesting that. But they are gaining a benefit by development without authority. We need an effective deterrent, and the existing four-year rule with its relatively narrow field of changes of use other than changes of use to residential use has opened up abuses which are the subject of very strong complaints from planning authorities. I have had representations from planning authorities in various parts of the country who are anxious to see this provision go through. They accept the limitations imposed on it in the Amendment.
I reject the idea that my precise wording in what I said when I threw out a suggestion in Committee should be taken as an undertaking to be transferred into the wording of a Statute, and I suggest that my Amendment is fully within the spirit of what I have said. I have pointed out the social evil which will result. It is not something new. I am not inventing the idea of a single dwelling-house as a separate class. Section 12(3) of the 1962 Act provides:
For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this section—
(a) the use as two or more separate dwellinghouses of any building previously used as a single dwellinghouse involves a material change in the use of the building and of each part thereof which is so used";
It already is a breach of planning control to convert from a single dwelling-house to a multiple dwelling-house, and for the social reasons I have outlined I suggest, that it would be wise not to subject such a breach to the constraint of the four-year rule. For these reasons I would advise the House to reject the Amendments.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: While we understand that the Minister of State speaking in Committee may from time to time necessarily use language a little loosely, we do feel that there has been a breach of a clear understanding that when he talked about residential use

he meant residential use in the sense in which we are accustomed to use it in planning matters.

Dealing with the limitation period, we would agree with a great deal of what the Minister has said on the need to ensure that law-breaking is not encouraged, and no great burdens are placed upon local planning officers in relation to enforcement action. At the same time, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has urged so cogently, we feel that something more needs to be done than has been suggested so far, to ensure finality. We welcome the Minister of State's undertakings that the matter will be looked at again later in these proceedings and perhaps in another place.

Therefore, I beg formally to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end to insert:
'and in all other cases it may be served only within the period of six years from the date of the breach'.

We feel that it would be much more simple and convenient if we were clear about this and established a six-year period for all these matters.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 177.

Division No. 158.]
AYES
[10.55 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fortescue, Tim
Maddan, Martin


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Faster, Sir John
Maginnts, John E.


Astor, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gower, Raymond
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Grant, Anthony
Miscampbell, Norman


Black, Sir Cyril
Grant-Ferris, R.
Monro, Hector


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Montgomery, Fergus


Brewis, John
Grieve, Percy
More, Jasper


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Nott, John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Clegg, Walter
Higgins, Terence L.
Percival, Ian


Cooke, Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Peyton, John


Corfield, F. V.
Hill, J. E. B.
Pink, R. Bonner


Currie, G. B. H.
Holland, Philip
Pounder, Rafton


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hordern, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dance, James
Hunt, John
Prior, J. M. L.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Francis


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Doughty, Charles
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Eden, Sir John
Kirk, Peter
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Elliott,n.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kitson, Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lane, David
Royle, Anthony


Farr, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fisher, Nigel
MacArthur, Ian
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McMaster, Stanley
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)




Silvester. Frederick
Wall, Patrick
Worsley, Marcut


Sinclair, Sir George
Walters, Dennis
Wright, Esmond


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'tnington) 
Ward, Dame Irene
Wylie, N. R.


Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Weatherill, Bernard



Speed, Keith
Webster, David



Stainton, Keith
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William



Taylor, Frank (Moss side)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Temple, John M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Gourlay, Harry
Orbach, Maurice


Aliaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Orme, Stanley


Archer, Peter
Gregory, Arnold
Oswald, Thomas


Armstrong, Ernest
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Griffiths, David (Rorher Valley)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Palmer, Arthur


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Barnett, Joel
Hamling, William
Pavitt, Laurence


Baxter, William
Harman, William
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Beaney, Alan
Harper, Joseph
pentland, Norman


Benee, Cyril
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Haseldine, Norman
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hazell, Bert
Price, William (Rugby)


Blackburn, F.
Heffer, Eric S.
Probert, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Horner, John
Rees, Merlyn


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Reynolds, G. W.


Booth, Albert
Howie, W.
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hoy, James
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow.E.)


Brooks, Edwin
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rose, Paul


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hunter, Adam
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Sheldon, Robert


Brown, R. W (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Buchan, Norman
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Skcffington, Arthur


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Slater, Joseph


Chapman, Donald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Small William


Coe, Denis
Lawson, George
Snow, Julian


Coleman, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Spriggs Leslie


Concannon, J D.
Lee, John (Reading)
Steel, David(Roxburgh)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Swingler, Stephen


Dalyell, Tarn
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taverne Dick


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Loughlin, Charles
Tinn, James


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Lubbock, Eric
Urwi'n, T. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Varley Eric G



Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McBride, Neil
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Delargy, Hugh
MacColl, James
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dempsey, James
MacDermot, Niall
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Dewar, Donald
Macdonald, A. H.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
McGuire, Michael
Wallace George


Dickens, James
Mackenzie Gregor (Rutherglen)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Doig, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.
Watkins Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Dunnett, Jack
McNamara, J. Kevin
Weitzman, David


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wellbeloved James


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Whitaker Ben


Eadie, Alex
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
White, Mrs. Eriene


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mapp, Charles
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ellis, John
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


English, Michael
Marquand, David
Williams Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ennals, David
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, Rt. Hn. George


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Millan, Bruce
Winsatnley Dr. M.P.


Faulds, Andrew
MilIer, Dr. M. S. 
Woodburn, Rt. Hn.A.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Woof Robert


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Yates, Victor


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Moyle, Roland



Ford, Ben
Murray, Albert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Forrester, John
Neal, Harold
Mr. John McCann and



Freeson, Reginald
Newens, Stan
Mr. Alan Fitch.


Gardner, Tony
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Phitip(Derby,S.)



Garrert, W. E.
O'Malley, Brian

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Clause 14.

APPEAL AGAINST ENFORCEMENT NOTICE.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 12, line 25,

to leave out from beginning to ' occurred ' and to insert:
(c) in the case of a notice alleging a breach of planning control which, by virtue of section 13(3) above, may be served only within the period of four years from the date of the breach, that that period had elapsed at the date of service;


(cc) in the case of a notice not falling within paragraph (c) above, that the breach of planning control alleged by the notice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment, we can discuss the Amendment to it standing in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), to leave out 'the period of four years' and insert 'a specific period'.

Mr. MacDermot: I suggest that we also discuss Amendment No. 31, in page 15, line 21, after '(c)', insert '(cc)', which is consequential.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is convenient.

Mr. MacDermot: Amendment No. 24 is consequential on Amendment No. 23. It makes the necessary change in Clause 14(1) by adding as an additional ground of appeal that a breach of planning control, to which the four-year rule still applies, took place more than four years before the enforcement notice was served.

Mr. Graham Page: We do not wish to move our Amendment to the Amendment, nor to comment. We accept the Government Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 12, line 36, to leave out 'state the' and to insert 'some'.
Clause 14 deals with the procedure of appeals against enforcement notices. Subsection (2), in particular, deals with the form in which an appeal against an enforcement notice is brought before the Minister. It replaces the existing law, contained in Section 46(2) of the 1962 Act. However, it does not reproduce that provision exactly, but adds a little to it. It is the addition to which we object. Section 46(2) of the Act says:
Any appeal under this section shall be made by notice in writing to the Minister, which shall indicate the grounds of the appeal;
The provision in the Bill is as follows:
An appeal under this section shall be made by notice in writing to the Minister which shall indicate the grounds of the appeal and state the facts on which it is based;
It is this last phrase which is the addition. We fear that if facts have to be stated in the notice of appeal to the Minister, the appellant will be precluded from producing further facts at the hearing.
At present, it is accepted law that one needs to indicate only a ground of appeal and not necessarily indicate all the grounds of appeal. The Bill says that the appellant "shall … state the facts". The ordinary interpretation must surely be that, in his notice, he must state the facts, and not just some of them, on which he bases his appeal and that, if he does not state them, he will not be at liberty to bring them forward at the hearing.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will know the case Chelmsford R.D.C. v. Powell. The basis of the decision was that an appellant, having indicated a ground of appeal, could bring forward further grounds later at the hearing before the Minister. But the whole of that decision, I believe, was based on the word "indicate". In the Bill it says that the appellant must state the facts, and state the facts he must if it becomes law in this form.
If he does not state the full facts he will not have an opportunity of bringing more facts forward at the hearing. If this additional burden on the appellant means anything at all, it is restrictive on his rights of appeal. It is unfair that the appellant is called upon to state the facts at that early stage, whereas the local planning authority does not have to state the facts on which it alleges that there has been a breach of planning law. The appellant is put at a disadvantage. He is not told the facts on which the local planning authority alleges that he has broken the planning law, but within 28 days of being served with an enforcement notice, he has to collect all the facts in dispute, set them out in a notice to the Minister, and abide by what he sets out in the notice. This is too great a burden on an appellant. If he merely indicates the grounds of appeal, and some facts on which the appeal is based, that should be sufficient. He should be at liberty to bring forward further facts at the hearing.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): We had a long discussion about this on 14th March in Committee, and I am conscious of the point of the hon. Gentleman, that if all the facts were not indicated in the notice of appeal, then the appellant might be precluded from adducing them at the inquiry. I said that


I would look at this point to see whether, without letting in the very mischief we want to prevent—which is that all those going to the inquiry, the local authority or anyone else, could turn up without knowing what are the basic facts upon which the appellant is basing his case— something could be done.
On reflection I cannot think that it is right that everyone should be left in the dark without having this basic indication of the nature of the grounds of appeal. I said that I would consider whether, without readmitting the mischief we wanted to avoid, we could put in statutory form something which would meet the hon. Gentleman's point. We have spent a good deal of time with the draftsmen and others, but we are afraid that it is not possible to draft something which would not undo what is the major purpose of the new subsection.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman, since the decision of Chelmsford R.D.C. v. Powell, when it was held that the Minister could consider other grounds, legal advice is that he certainly could do so. I have indicated that all that is required under this subsection is that the basic facts, not the means by which the appellant hopes to prove the facts, need be given. This could be considered by the Minister. It has been held that the Minister could consider additional facts when he comes into the picture. I go a little further and tell the hon. Gentleman that within the regulations which will have to be made, we shall indicate this point, that the main theme of the basic facts must be given. We will go further, so that the appellant will know that they are the requirements.

Sir John Foster: Will the Minister meet the point that the other side, the local authority, is not bound to disclose the facts, because in the enforcement notice the facts may very well be changed. My hon. Friend made the point that it is unfair on the appellant to have to state all the facts and not the authority.

Mr. Skeffington: He would have to state what the broad nature of the appeal was.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said about including this in regulations. I would have liked to have seen

it in the Bill. It is far more satisfactory that we should state the point here and now rather than to have to look it up in regulations later. Nevertheless this is a point of wording. I hope it may be looked at in another place. I do not wish to delay the House by dividing it, and I am willing to accept the Parliamentary Secretary's assurances that he will put something very definite in regulations to protect the appellant in the case that he presents. Accordingly, I would ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment 26, in page 13, line 9, leave out 'he is satisfied that' and insert 'the appellant or'.
This is an Amendment to Clause 14(4), which is another subsection dealing with the procedure on appeals to the Minister against enforcement notices. This subsection deals with the correction of informalities and the service of enforcement notices. The subsection provides that the Minister may correct any informality, defect or error in the enforcement notice, if he is satisfied that the enforcement, defect or error is not material. It then goes on to give the Minister power to decide whether a person who has not been served with an enforcement notice is or is not prejudiced by the failure to serve him. If the Minister is satisfied that the person is substantially prejudiced by the failure to serve, he can continue with the appeal, and, I suppose, bind that person to the decision he may make on the appeal.
This is surely serious. It is the duty of the local planning authority, if it serves an enforcement notice, to see that it serves it on all the persons concerned and on those who may be affected by a decision on the enforcement notice. One who may be affected by the failure to serve is the appellant himself. If the Minister decided that someone who has not been served with a notice who would normally be served is not prejudiced by the failure to serve him, that may be all right for that person, but the appellant may be prejudiced by that person not being before the Minister on appeal, if, for example, the appellant is a freeholder and his tenant has committed the


breach which has given rise to the enforcement notice. The tenant may well not be prejudiced, in fact would be in a privileged position if he is not served with the enforcement notice, but the freeholder would be prejudiced by not having the tenant as a party to the appeal.
The second point arises out of the words "If he is satisfied". This leaves the complete power to the Minister to decide whether a person should have been served or not. This is an immense power to put in the hands of the Minister, of judging a person in his absence. If he, in his wisdom or lack of wisdom, thinks that it does not matter that somebody has not been served with an enforcement notice, neither the appellant, nor that person, nor the courts, can question that. The Minister has merely to say: "I am satisfied that the man has not been substantially prejudiced and I am not going to stop these proceedings merely to go back and serve him".
This is too great a power to put in the hands of a Minister who is himself hearing the appeal. He should see that the notice has been served. It is not for him to have the absolute discretion to say whether or not it should be served. The most important point is that service of the notice is a condition precedent to a decision of the High Court, on a decision of the Minister on appeal. If the Minister has gone wrong on the law on appeal, the appellant will be entitled to go to the High Court to try to get that decision right in law. His right to go to the High Court is given to him under Section 180(1) of the 1962 Act. It is a condition precedent to his appeal to the High Court that he is a person who has been served with an enforcement notice.
Section 180(1) of the 1962 Act provides:
Where the Minister gives a decision in proceedings on an appeal under Part IV of this Act against an enforcement notice, the appellant or the local planning authority or any person (other than the appellant) on whom the enforcement notice was served under Part IV of this Act may, according as rules of court may provide, either appeal to the High Court against the decision on a point of law or require the Minister to state and sign a case for the opinion of the High Court.
It seems that if a man has not been served, he has no right under that section

to appeal to the High Court on a point of law. So if the Minister is given the power, under Clause 14(4), to decide in his absolute discretion whether a person ought to have been served, he is deciding whether that person would have a right to appeal to the High Court on a point of law. If I am right in this construction of the law—and it is not an easy matter to interpret, because one is trying to tie up the 1962 Act with the Bill—the Minister is taking power to decide whether a man will have the right to appeal to the High Court against a decision of the Minister on a point of law. This should not remain in the Bill in that form. My Amendment would correct that and would leave it to the courts to decide, if there was any question, whether a person ought to have been served with an enforcement notice.

Mr. Skeffington: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for that last point, because it is a new one. We would like to look at it, if the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment. We must look at it in any event, and we will.
I do not think that the appellant could normally be substantially prejudiced, because, if he is not served, as the Amendment suggests, he would not be an appellant, and presumably none of the other processes could follow. This is what puzzled me about the Amendment, but I can now understand it, because of the additional reasons which the hon. Gentleman introduced at a later stage. The appeal is in the Minister's hands, and if he found that, because of some defect of this character in relation to another party, the appellant was prejudiced, this would be a proper matter which he could and would take into account.
On the first point, there is not much in the hon. Gentleman's fears. On the point about the failure to serve a notice, this would be a good defence in the magistrates' court regarding non-compliance. This only goes back to the fact that he would not have complied with the notice.
In view of the third important point, we would like to look at the matter again.

Mr. Graham Page: With respect, I am getting tired of matters being looked at again. This is a vitally important point. It may be that I have only just put the third point across the Floor of the House, but the Amendment is just as important on the first and second points which I raised. Whether the third point needs looking at again is neither here nor there. This was discussed in Committee. It is one of those matters which should not be left. We shall not get another chance in this House to put it right. We should have to rely on somebody else putting it right in another place. Therefore, I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide on the Amendment.

Mr. MacDermot: I am anxious to save time. I am content to accept the Amendment on the clear understanding that, when we have looked at it, if we think some alteration of wording is required, we will introduce the necessary Amendment elsewhere. I do not want it to be taken that we have bound ourselves to accepting that this is the effective way of dealing with it.

Mr. Graham Page: I am happy with that if the Minister is willing to accept it on those terms.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15.

POWER TO STOP FURTHER DEVELOPMENT PENDING PROCEEDINGS ON ENFORCEMENT NOTICE.

Mr. James Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 15, line 7, after 'on', insert 'all the'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 28, in page 15, line 9, after 'date', insert 'of service'.

Mr. Allason: Clause 15 concerns the stop notice procedure by which there is to be in future an immediate means of enforcement of planning control by the service of a notice prohibiting the continuing of any specified operation. This will be useful where there is a nuisance through breach of planning control. This is a sharp weapon in the hands of the local planning authority and, as a sharp weapon, it should be used with care.
There are various methods of ending the stop notice. In the event of there appearing to be an error, the stop notice will be withdrawn. It may be that the local planning authority, in good faith, believe that there is a breach of planning control, issue a stop notice, and then, upon investigation, find there is no breach of planning control and they withdraw the stop notice.
If the stop notice was withdrawn, compensation would be payable for any loss or damage directly attributable. This is provided in Clause 16. This subsection concerns the method of withdrawing the notice. Amendment 27 would provide for service on "all the persons" affected and not just "persons", thus avoiding the possibility of the notice being served on one person and not the others. This is because withdrawal of a stop notice on one person would be binding on all those concerned, and each one would require to consider his position over compensation, particularly considering that compensation depends upon expenditure during the period of operation of the notice.
If that expense were running, perhaps, for several days after withdrawal, compensation could not be claimed, because the expense would not be directly attributable to the lifting of the notice. Therefore, the date of the notice taking effect is very important, and Amendment 28 deals with that, providing that it would be from the date of service of the notice. If the effective date is the date that the notice is given, it may be some days before the notice reaches the person concerned. After a decision to withdraw is made, the notice may lie on a clerk's table for a whole weekend before being posted to the person concerned. He finds that for several days past he has been put to expense for which he cannot claim compensation. I hope, therefore, that that Amendment can be accepted.
11.30 p.m.
Let me give one example. Suppose there is a chalk pit being used for rubbish dumping; that the local planning authority believes there is a breach of planning control and serves a stop notice on both the mineral undertaker owning the chalk pit and the rubbish dumper; then finds that there is no breach of planning


control; that it was mistaken; and that it withdraws the stop notice on the rubbish dumper only. Meanwhile, the mineral undertaker is quite unaware that the stop notice has been withdrawn and he continues to spend money on trying to take measures to correct the alleged nuisance which turns out not to be a breach of planning control at all.
Therefore, on the two grounds, firstly that the mineral undertaker ought to know about the withdrawal of the stop notice, and secondly, that the date at which he knows about it ought to be the date on which the stop notice takes effect, I hope both these Amendments will be accepted.

Mr. MacDermot: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There is a valid point here, I think. It is that the stop notice operates in personam and not in rent. It operates against the person on whom a particular notice is served, and I think that the inevitable consequence of that is that it should continue in force till that person has received notice that it has been withdrawn. Just as stop notices can begin to operate at different times, namely, the times when they are served on different persons, so I think it follows that they should cease to operate at different times, namely, the times when notices of that are served on the particular persons. That is why I cannot accept the first Amendment, because it would mean they could not operate till they had been served on all the people —and someone might have emigrated, and then we really would have an infinity of time in which the stop notice would continue to operate.
What I think we should do is to recast the wording a bit. We would accept Amendment No. 28, and I would advise the House to accept it. It would mean we would have to make some additional Amendment later in consequence. So I would advise the House to reject Amendment No. 27 and to accept Amendment No. 28.

Mr. Allason: In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 15, line 9, after 'date' insert 'of service'. —[Mr. Allason.]

Clause 16.

COMPENSATION FOR LOSS DUE TO STOP NOTICE.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 15, line 10, to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:
(1) Where a stop notice ceases to have effect, a person

(a) in relation to whom the stop notice was in force, or
(b) who at any time during which the stop notice was in force had an interest in the land to which it related, or
(c) who at any time during which the stop notice was in force was concerned with the carrying out or continuance of any operations on the land to which it related, or
(d) who was served with the stop notice under section 15(1) or (2) of this Act,

shall, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2) below, be entitled to recover from the local planning authority compensation for all loss or damage suffered by him as a result of the prohibition contained in the notice.



Clause 16 deals with compensation for loss due to stop notices, and subsection (1) sets out those who are entitled to compensation. When we discussed this in Committee the Minister agreed that the wording needed amendment, and there is a Government Amendment, Amendment No. 30, which is related to this. I do not know whether it would be convenient to deal with that Amendment at the same time as this?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is for the convenience of the House? Yes, indeed.

Mr. Page: I am much obliged. The Minister's Amendment is insufficient and inadequate and does not go as far as he seemed to be prepared to go in Committee.
My hon. Friends have endeavoured to spell out the people who might be concerned and might be damaged by a stop notice and, therefore, might be entitled to compensation. They would be so entitled only if they proved damage, loss or expense as a result of the stop notice having been imposed on them for a period of time. Four categories of persons might be affected in that way and they are set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the proposed new subsection; and I will explain each category. Paragraph (a) is the person
…in relation to whom the stop notice was in force …


These words are taken from Clause 15, which refers to a stop notice being in force in relation to a person who has imposed on him certain duties, to the extent that if he does not carry out those duties he is guilty of an offence and may be fined up to £400. That is one person who is affected by the stop notice and who may suffer damage and loss, described as a person
…in relation to whom the stop notice was in force …
The second category, in paragraph (b), is the person who may have an interest in the land at the time when the stop notice is served, or—this is an addition; it does not appear in the Bill as drafted—who may have an interest at any time after the stop notice has been served and before it has been withdrawn. This is necessary in relation to somebody acquiring an interest while the stop notice is in existence because there may be a firm contract, the completion of which happens to take place after the stop notice has been served. Somebody may be obliged to purchase a property before the stop notice was served, and he must then carry out his contract and buy the property. He may thereby suffer loss by reason of the stop notice on the property. Thus, the second category concerns a person
… who at any time during which the stop notice was in force had an interest in the land to which it related …
The third category, in paragraph (c), is a person
… who at any time during which the stop notice was in force was concerned with the carrying out or continuance of any operations on the land to which it related …
These words are taken from Clause 15(2), which provides that
A stop notice may be served by the local planning authority on any person who appears to them to have an interest in the land or to be concerned with the carrying out or continuance of any operations thereon.
Here is someone else who is recognised as being involved in the proceedings of the stop notice and who may, therefore, suffer loss.
The fourth category, in paragraph (d), is the person
… who was served with the stop notice under section 15(1) or (2) of this Act …
One might call this what is often referred to in Income Tax law as the "dustbin schedule" because it sweeps in all those who neither had an interest in the

land nor were concerned with operations but who appeared to the local planning authority to have such an interest or to be concerned in operations. Under Clause 15(2)
A stop notice may be served … on any person who appears to …
the local planning authority
… to have an interest in the land or to be concerned with … operations thereon.
They would not come into the earlier categories I have described because one could say that they did not have an interest and were not concerned at all, but unfortunately they were served with a stop notice. I think it would be an exceptional case in which they could suffer loss and be entitled to compensation, but this sets out the categories of persons who may suffer loss. Of course they must prove that loss if they are to be entitled to compensation.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I am trying to understand how a person with no interest in the land and not concerned with operations on it could suffer financial loss as a result of being served with a stop notice because it appeared to a local authority that he had an interest when he had not.

Mr. Page: A number of persons may be concerned, a freeholder, a tenant, a contractor, a sub-contractor or a sub-sub-contractor. It might be that one subcontractor is not concerned with particular developments in respect of which a stop notice has been served but he appears to be so involved and, being served with a stop notice, he may be obliged to stop other work on the land and thereby suffer loss. As I have said, it would be an extraordinary case in which such a person suffered loss, but he is a person who may be served with a stop notice and, if he can prove loss, he should be entitled to compensation.
The effort is to set out conveniently all those who might be entitled rather than leaving it indefinite and certainly not wide enough in the wording of Clause 16(1). It was agreed on both sides in Committee that this needed to be amended. We have tried to find the right words and I hope that they commend themselves to the Minister.

Mr. MaeDermot: I agree that our Amendment No. 30 goes only part of the way. I said in Committee that I


thought the Clause is drawn too narrowly both as respects the landowner and the contractor. Amendment No. 30 secures the position of the landowner whose right to compensation will no longer depend on having been served with a stop notice, but it does not deal with the contractor. I had hoped to put down an Amendment at this stage, but I understand from the Parliamentary draftsman that he has found this an exceedingly complex and difficult matter because it involves the contractual rights of the contractor.
The difficulty here is to ensure that the planning authority will not have to pay the same compensation twice over—once to the landowner who may be in a contractual position where he has indemnified the contractor, and duplicating that by giving a statutory right to the contractor to get compensation direct from the authority. That is the reason for the complication and the delay.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby on his bold attempt to draft it, but I must advise the House that I do not think his draft is satisfactory for a number of reasons. I have dealt with the difficulty about the contractor and the risk of duplication. Paragraph (b) is objectionable for a different reason. It would give a right of compensation to a person who acquired an interest in the land after the stop notice had been served as well as to a person who had an interest when it was served. This could give rise to a traffic in claims for compensation by allowing claims to run with the land. As I said, a stop notice is a personal notice. It does not run, and it ought not to run, with the land. A purchaser buying land in respect of which a stop notice has been served would be buying subject to an enforcement notice. Searches and supplementary inquiries should reveal that existence of the stop notice so that he does not buy in ignorance.
11.45 p.m.
The wording at the end of the Amendment about the measure of damages, to which" the hon. Gentleman did not refer, is wording which was the subject of the Amendment which was considered and rejected in Committee, omitting in effect "directly" which appears and which, as I explained in Committee, should remain.

I repeat the assurance that I gave in Committee. We will bring forward an Amendment, which I hope that the House will find acceptable, to deal with the position of the contractor.

Mr. Graham Page: Our difficulty at present is that this is practically the last stage of the Bill. We shall not be able to see the Amendment which the Government table in another place and will not have a chance to discuss it fully and in detail. Admittedly, the Bill will return here for consideration of Lords Amendments, but there is no opportunity then to consider it in the detail which we would have devoted to it if an Amendment had been made in Committee or on Report. From what the Minister has said, I think that we are at one in what we want to provide in subsection (1). If I am right about that—

Mr. MacDermot: Mr. MacDermot indicated assent.

Mr. Page: —I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: Amendment No. 30, in page 15, line 11, leave out from beginning to second 'who'.

Amendment No. 31, in line 21, after '(c)', insert '(cc)'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Clause 17.

DETERMINATION OF PLANNING AND SIMILAR APPEALS BY PERSONS APPOINTED BY THE MINISTER.

Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 16, line 8, leave out from 'except' to 'as' in line 9.
Subsection (1) is divided into three parts. One part provides that the Minister may prescribe the classes of appeal which shall be determined by an inspector instead of, as at present, by the Minister. Secondly, the Minister may prescribe exceptions by classes of case for the time being. Having prescribed the classes, he then un-prescribes them. Thirdly, the Minister may give directions as regards exceptions. Again, these are exceptions by general cases, not by individual cases, because Clause 18 provides arrangements for the Minister to exempt individual cases from his general prescriptions.
We welcome the principle of this delegation of the power of decision on an appeal from the Minister to the inspector,


but we would like to know rather more about the types of class than we have heard so far. In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary gave us no explanation; he merely said that the cases would be those falling under Section 23 of the 1962 Act. The cases he mentioned were appeals relating to single houses, residential conversions, and outline planning of residential development of under two acres. He went on to define that as
little groups of three or four houses".— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 21st March, 1968; c. 549.]
It seems an amazingly low density if he is thinking of three or four houses on a site of up to two acres. He added that there would not yet be prescription for caravans, shops, offices and garages— that is, there would be prescription for these classes later. This still leaves the whole matter pretty vague. If the Minister could make a statement on this it would be a general help.
The effect of the Amendment would be to remove the power to exempt classes of case by prescription. It is intended that the Minister shall prescribe the classes of cases which shall be dealt with and then to prescribe out of them classes of cases which shall be exceptions to the classes he has already prescribed. That seems rather a muddled way of doing things. We know from the Minister that he intends to prescribe certain classes later. I hope that he will not prescribe a general class and then say, "The following are exceptions and shall not come into effect until I make a further prescription." It would be better to start gently, gain experience of how well the system will work and then extend the prescriptions. It seems peculiar to make the prescriptions and then un-prescribe them.
I hope that the Minister will explain what is really intended.

Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Gentleman referred to some of the broad categories of cases which it was hoped could be transferred at a very early stage to be decided in the way that the Clause provides, so that we would no longer have the appeals which I have sometimes described as cascading into Whitehall. As he said, this is an objective which is generally welcomed.
To some extent the hon. Gentleman inadvertently misquoted me. I referred to

planning applications confined to small areas of about two acres and went on to talk about outline planning permission for small groups of housing, perhaps of three or four or up to 10—but not in relation to two acres. The question of density does not arise. What I was trying to give was the number of simple planning applications, the overwhelming number of which relate to single houses, additions to houses, garages, and things like that, in which it is absurd that appeals should come to Whitehall. I went a little further in describing some of the categories with which it was not intended at an early stage to deal under the procedure of the Clause —things like caravans, shops, offices and petrol stations. But I went on to say that we did not want to get a great volume of this work transferred because this is one of the ways in which we can make planning machinery more local, more democratic and faster, and, to use a word which I sometimes used to describe Amendments of hon. Members opposite, less "grandmotherly", with everything being referred to Whitehall. This has commanded general support. I said in Committee on another occasion that discussions about categories and classes are going on with various bodies, so that we hope that a very quick start will be made in the selected areas.
The hon. Gentleman went on to the need, having prescribed categories and classes of cases which could be decided in this way, for reserving power to recover the jurisdiction. Perhaps I can give one or two examples. We know that in planning matters applications in respect of a small physical development can sometimes have a very damaging effect or an effect of great consequence on traffic, or whatever it may be, and therefore become extremely significant. The examples which the Ministry has in mind are the sort of cases in which the Minister of Transport makes an Article 9 direction. This is the sort of case where development may be prohibited or allowed only with conditions where the development abuts on a trunk road. These are considerations which are not as simple as the categories it is suggested should be transferred in the first place. Or it may be that these are cases where development can be permitted as long as the access abuts on to a side road. These involve, in the earlier stages, matters which probably it would not be right to


transfer, and therefore the Minister would, if he thought it suitable, recover the determination of these cases.
In another group of cases, the Minister of Agriculture may have strongly expressed the view that development should not take place because of the high agricultural value of the land. This is beyond the sort of case which, in the first stages, we would want decided in the way in which other cases might be decided. Such cases involve considerations which may be more complex and require rather more experienced treatment. While we should provide for the simple planning matters to be transferred—it is absurd that appeals should go through this long procedure, coming up to the capital—even small developments can sometimes involve planning consequences which may have considerable effects. Therefore, we must make provision for these matters to be recovered in the way suggested.

Sir J. Foster: In cases in which it is difficult to see whether the Minister of Agriculture has expressed a strong desire, is there not a great enough safeguard under Clause 18(1)?

Mr. Skeffington: There will be certain categories of case which come within the Minister's jurisdiction. Discussions about categories are going on with the interested bodies. We are asking them very largely to decide this themselves with guidance. Our desire is to make this a local operation. But these matters will be carefully specified in due course under the powers in the Bill.

Mr. Allason: We are very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his further dissertation on the intentions of the Government. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12 m.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 16, line 16, at end insert:
(b) appeals under section 14 of the Civic Amenities Act 1967.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it would be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 36 and 37.

Mr. Skeffington: Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 add two categories to the enforcement appeals which are capable of being delegated to inspectors for determination. These are appeals against Tree Preservation Orders within the powers of the Civic Amenities Act, 1967, and advertisement enforcement appeals, which Amendment No. 36 is designed to cover.
This is an enabling power. In view of the explanations I gave on a previous Amendment in Committee, we do not intend that these matters should be subject to the procedure of transfer at the present time. But we must take the power in the Bill to enable this to be done at the appropriate time.
The necessary rearrangement of parts of the Schedule would follow and are provided for in Amendment No. 37.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 36, in page 16, line 17, at end insert:
'as originally enacted or as applied by regulations under any provision of the principal Act'.

Amendment No. 37, in page 16, line 26, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
(5) A person appointed under this section to determine an appeal shall have the like powers and duties in relation to the appeal as he Minister under whichever are relevant of the following provisions, that is to say—

(a)in relation to appeals under section 23 of the principal Act, subsections (4) and (6) of that section;
(b)in relation to appeals under section H of the Civic Amenities Act, section 14(4) and (5) above;
(c)in relation to appeals under section 54 of this Act, subsections (4) to (6) of that section;
(d)in relation to appeals under paragraph 1 3 of Schedule 3 to this Act, sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph;
(e)in relation to appeals under paragraph 12 of that Schedule, sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) of that paragraph;
and those relevant provisions and section 23(7) of the principal Act (finality of decisions), subsection (3) and, where relevant, subsection (7) of section 14 above or paragraph 3(5) or 12(6) of that Schedule, as the case may be, shall apply accordingly.

Amendment No. 38, in page 16, line 42, leave out ' may be referred to ' and insert ' falls to be determined by'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 18.

DETERMINATION OF APPEALS BY THE MINISTER.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 17, line 45 leave out from 'had' to end of line 4 on page 18 and insert:
'not been asked in pursuance of section 17(6) above whether they wished to appear before and be heard by a person appointed to hear the appeal, or had been asked that question and had expressed no wish in answer thereto, or had expressed a wish to appear and be heard as aforesaid, but had not been afforded an opportunity of doing so'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendments No. 39, in page 17, line 15 at end insert:
(8) A person appointed under this section shall in relation to an appeal which falls to be determined by him thereunder ask the applicant or appellant, as the case may require, and the local planning authority before the appeal has been determined whether they wish the appeal to be determined by the Minister, and if either of them so wish the appeal shall be determined by the Minister and not by that person.
Amendment No. 40, in page 17, line 24 leave out from 'appeal' to end of line 27 and insert:
'whether such representations be made to the authority or to the Minister or to the person appointed by the Minister'.
Amendment No. 41, in page 17, line 28 after 'section', insert:
'or of a request under subsection (8) of the preceding section'.
Amendment No. 42, in page 17, line 39:
leave out from 'purpose' to end of line 4 on page 18.

Mr. Graham Page: Are any of the Amendments selected for a Division if desired?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid not. Mr. Speaker has not selected them for Division.

Mr. Skeffington: The Amendment makes good a weakness in the provision made for affording hearings to the parties to an appeal which has been recovered from an inspector for determination by the Minister.
In Committee hon. Members drew attention to certain matters which it was feared were not adequately covered in

the Clause as drafted. The Amendment places on the Minister the obligation to grant a fresh hearing in certain cases which were not covered before and where it may be essential to have a fresh hearing. These are cases where the reason for the direction recovering the jurisdiction raises matters on which neither of the parties to the matter had previously made representations. This may be because of some of the consequences to which I referred in an earlier Amendment. It may be that there is some factor involving other Ministries. It may be that there is an Article 9 direction or something of that kind. If neither of the parties knew about the circumstances, they ought not to be prejudiced by the matter being independently considered. The Amendment provides for that.
It is also right that where the parties have not been asked whether they wish to be heard, an opportunity should be provided. Alternatively, it may be that they have been asked but have not replied, or it may be that they have asked to be heard, but that a hearing has not yet taken place. In all those circumstances, one wants to be sure that a hearing is available.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are interested in Amendment No. 42. However, we feel that there is no purpose in going as far as that suggests. If the parties say that they do not wish to be heard by the inspector and agree to abide by written representations, given that assurance, there is no need to provide for a fresh hearing, and there is no reason why, because there is to be a determination by the Minister, there should be a second request to them. It seems unnecessary. Again, if the matter has been fully argued before the inspector but proves unexpectedly difficult and is recovered, all of it having been argued, there is no need to reopen it.
There is no doubt that the original drafting did not provide with certainty for the three categories that I have mentioned, and I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Allason: This is the most clumsy Amendment conceivable. It is a perfect example of the sort of wretched drafting that we have come to expect from the Government. It falls into a number of parts. First, it says that the Minister will


appoint an inspector to hear the appeal if the applicant or the appellant or the local planning authority (a) had not been asked if they wished to appear, or (b) had been asked and (i) expressed no wish or (ii) expressed the wish but had not been heard.
That leaves us with one remaining alternative, which is that the applicant or the appellant or the local planning authority had not had any opportunity of appearing. In that case, why make everyone wade through a series of alternatives?
My redrafting is not in Parliamentary language, but it is much more simple. It says that if the applicant or the appellant or the local planning authority wishes, in pursuance of Section 17 (6) above, to be heard but has not already been afforded an opportunity of doing so, and so on.
If that is the meaning, well and good. But would it not be better to put it that way? The chances are that I have the Amendment upside down and that this is not the intention at all. In which case, the Government have, as they frequently do, produced a piece of gibberish which cannot be understood except by taking counsel's opinion, which I resent having to do because I like to be able to read an Act and understand what it means. Can we have a further explanation?

Sir J. Foster: I also speak diffidently about the effect of Amendment No. 42. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he did not think it necessary, if there had been argument before the person appointed by the Minister and then the case was determined by the Minister, for all the arguments to be gone through again. But surely that is the very sort of case in which the parties might want to be heard verbally because, under Clause 18(2), the reasons which are given and served on a person to account for the determination of the appeal by the Minister may be reasons which have not been argued at all.
As I say, I speak with diffidence on this obscure provision, but if I am right this is a strong reason for requiring personal appearance again if the parties so wish. Yet I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that this was unnecessary.

Mr. Skeffington: If we had put this provision in negative form, no doubt the Opposition would have asked for it to be in a positive form, which is precisely what the Clause does. Whichever way the Government do it, they are wrong, apparently. We are providing for a positive duty.
The hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) asked about a case where the matter has already been argued and then some unexpected factor arises. He said that there should be a re-hearing. But the Minister will have discretion to take this course. If there is any new matter which affects the position of the parties, there can be a rehearing. The position is fully safeguarded.
The other case to which I referred is that in which both parties have agreed to written representations and have made them. There is no automatic ground for a rehearing in this case but the Minister has discretion to hold one if there is some new factor.

Sir J. Foster: I do not regard the discretion of a Minister as any safeguard. One knows how bureaucracy works. It might well be that the Minister will be advised not to use his discretion. It is not a good safeguard. Surely hon. Members opposite who stand for the liberty of the subject will want a safeguard where there is a genuine reason for referring a case back to the Minister and will feel frustrated if, when they question the Minister he says, "In the exercise of my discretion I do not think you need come and argue before me".

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. and learned Gentleman has overlooked the Council on Tribunals. If new matter were produced in a case and no opportunity were given to the parties to give it, the rules would be broken and we would be in trouble with the Council. I think that the hon. Gentleman is on weak ground.

Mr. Graham Page: We are talking about whether people who make representations to the Minister about a subject which he has seen fit to call in from an inspector in order to deal with himself shall know why he has given that direction and shall be given an opportunity of a hearing. The Amendments I want to refer


to are Amendments No. 40, No. 42 and No. 43. Amendment No. 40 provides for those who have made representations to the Minister, to the local planning authority or to the man appointed by the Minister originally to hear the appeal, shall know why the Minister has called it in so that they can refresh their representations.
12.15 a.m.
I imagine this will be the case where the Minister, having originally intended that it should be heard and decided by an inspector, finds that some political point blows up, Parliamentary Questions are asked, and the Minister feels that he ought to take it away and deal with it himself. Therefore he will be considering a fresh aspect and those concerned ought to be told why he has made that direction.
All the Clause does at the moment is to say that the Minister must tell the owner of the property if he is not the appellant, or agricultural tenants if they are there. Then we come to the question

whether those who make representations to the Minister shall have an opportunity of being heard by him. Again, the Clause restricts that only to a few people, the owner who is not the appellant and the agricultural tenants. If they have had an opportunity before they are going to be heard again, and so on.

I cannot understand Amendment No. 43. I do not think anyone could understand it. It is a mass of words and I do not think we ought to allow that to go into the Bill, firstly, because we cannot understand it, and secondly, because it does not afford an opportunity for those who will be concerned in a hearing of this sort by the Minister to know why he has given the direction, or to have the opportunity of being heard by the Minister.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 105.

Division No. 159.]
AYES
[12.20 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardtey)
MacColl, James


Archer, Peter
Faulds, Andrew
MacDermot, Niall


Armstrong, Ernest
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Macdonald, A. H.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergten)


Bagier, Gordon A, T.
Ford, Ben
Mackintosh, John P.


Barnett, Joel
Forrester, John
McNamara, J. Kevin


Beaney, Alan
Freeson, Reginald
MacPherson, Malcolm


Bence, Cyril
Gardner, Tony
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Garrett, W. E.
Mapp, Charles


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Gourlay, Harry
Marks, Kenneth


Blackburn, F.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marquand, David


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gregory, Arnold
Mendelson, J. J.


Booth, Albert
Crey, Charles (Durham)
Millan, Bruce


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Milker, Dr. M. S.


Brooks, Edwin
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hamling, William
Moyle, Roland


Brown, Hugh D. (C'gow, Provan)
Hannan, William
Murray, Albert


Brown,Bob(N c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Harper, Joseph
Newens, Stan


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ogden, Eric


Buchan, Norman
Haseldine, Norman
O'Malley, Brian


Chapman. Donald
Hazall, Bert
Orbach, Maurice


Coe, Denis
Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Stanley


Coleman, Donald
Heffer, Eric S.
Oswald, Thomas


Concannon, J. D.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owtn, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Dalell, Tam
Hoy, James
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hughes, Emrys (Aryshire, S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurence


Dimpsey, James
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenfe'gh)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dewar, Donald
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Pentland, Norman


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Janner, Sir Barnett
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dickens, James
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Doig, Peter
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dunnett, Jack
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rees, Merlyn


Dunwoody, Mrs. Cwynrth (Exeter)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Reynolds, G. W.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lawson, George
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Eadie, Alex
Leadbitter, Ted
Rose, Paul


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lee, John (Reading)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Ellis, John
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Sheldon, Robert


English, Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ennals, David
Lubbock, Eric

Silverman, Julius (Aston)




Skeffington, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Slater, Joseph
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Small, William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wallace, George
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Stone house, John
Watkins, David (Consett)
Woof, Robert


Taverne, Dick
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor) 
Yates, Victor


Tinn, James
Wellbeloved, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Urwin, T. W.
Whitaker, Ben
Mr. Neil McBride and


Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Mr. Alan Fitch.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Percival, Ian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) 
Gresham Cooke, R.
Peyton, John


Astor, John
Grieve, Percy
Pink, R. Bonner


Awdry, Daniel
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pounder, Rafton


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Prior, J. M. L.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Francis


Black Sir Cyril
Higgins, Terence L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hiley, Joseph
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hill, J. E. B.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holland, Philip
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hordern, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)
Hunt, John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whltby)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Silvester, Frederick


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sinclair, Sir George


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Corfield, F. V.
Kirk, Peter
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Daiketh Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
Speed, Keith


Dance, James
Lane, David
Stainton, Keith


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Langford-Holt, SirJohn
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
MacArthur, Ian
Temple, John M.


Doughty Charles
Maddan, Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edwartl
Maginnis, John E.
Wall, Patrick


Eden, Sir John
Maxwell-Hysiop, R. J.
Weatherill, Bernard


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Webster, David


Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Farr, John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Miscampbell, Norman
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fortescue, Tim
Molloy, William
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Foster, Sir John
Montgomery, Fergus
Worsley, Marcus


Gibson-Watt, David
More, Jasper
Wright, Esmond


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wylie, N. R.


Goodhew, Victor
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gower, Raymond
Nott, John
Mr. Anthony Royle and Mr. Humphrey Atkins.


Grant, Anthony
Page, Graham (Crosby)

Clause 23.

REPEAL OF EXISTING PROVISIONS FOR COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND.

Mr. Oscar Murton: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 20, line 7, leave out 'and' and insert:
'in an area for which a local plan shall have been adopted and at the same time in such an area'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are discussing Amendment No. 45, in page 20, leave out lines 32 to 35 and insert:
(d) that it is necessary that the land should be acquired immediately for the purpose of securing its use in a manner not inconsistent with the use proposed for it by the local plan for the area in which it is situate.

Mr. Murton: I would like to deal with the related Amendment, No. 45. There was considerable discussion in Committee about 24(1){b) as it appeared in the

original Bill, and the main point of the discussion was the word "expedient". We felt that this gave the Government too great a power in how this matter should be applied. We were most anxious that we should ensure that it must be shown in the local plan. For that reason, we have put down this Amendment to replace "expedient" by "necessary". If this land is to be acquired, it is important that it should be related to the local plan, and that wider powers should not be given.

Mr. MacDermot: I hope there is no misunderstanding, but I find it difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's arguments to the Amendment called. As I understand it, the effect of Amendment No. 44 would be to provide that Sections 67 and 68 of the 1962 Act and Section 47 of the Post Office Act, 1963, should cease to have effect only in an area, for which a local plan has been adopted.

Mr. Murton: If I might interrupt, I was speaking to Amendment No. 45.

12.30 a.m..

Mr. MacDermot: I take it that the Opposition are not pressing Amendment No. 44.
Amendment No. 45 replaces the word "expedient" by the word "necessary", but it also makes another quite substantial change; namely, to bring back the link between the power to acquire under this paragraph and the development plan—inded, the development plan at the local plan stage.
One of the purposes of Clauses 23 and 24 is to break the link which previously existed by the designation procedure. I agree that the Amendment does not seek to restore such a tight link as that and to tie the compulsory acquisition powers directly to the plan, but it still links the acquisition closely to the terms of a local plan.
I remind the House that this provision, and the introduction of this power in Clause 24(1)(d), is the result of a recommendation of the Planning Advisory Group when it was considering its predecessor, Section 68(l)(b) of the 1962 Act. The Planning Advisory Group considered that
it would be possible to relate the power to the provisions of local plans, but this would tend to introduce controversial issues of acquisition into the discussion of local plans, including action area plans, which we are anxious to avoid "—
which we are, too.
It went on:
The right time to contest acquisition is when the land needs to be acquired and the compulsory purchase order is made.
We therefore recommend that in place of this power of acquisition, the provisions of Section 38(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, should be reintroduced. This was originally designed to meet the needs of the period before development plans became operative. It enabled authorities to acquire any land which the Minister was satisfied should be acquired for a purpose which appeared to him to be immediately necessary in the interests of the proper planning of the area. The acquiring authority would have to make the case for acquisition on the basis of specific proposals. A residual power of this kind will certainly be needed if authorities are to be encouraged to adopt a more positive and constructive approach to environmental planning and to make full use of the action area concept, particularly in areas requiring comprehensive improvement rather than redevelopment.

That is rather a lengthy quotation, but it fully sets out the argument and the thinking which underlies Clause 24(1)(d) and shows the reasons why we are anxious not to link it in this way to the local plan. There may be occasions when it is important to make acquisitions under this power and where there may, as yet, not have been prepared a local plan for the locality. Clearly in such a case the planning authority would have to make very plain, and argue fully, the planning merits of the proposed acquisition, because the Minister would have to be satisfied that the acquisition was
necessary in the interests of the proper planning of the area.
I am advised that the sort of case in which acquisitions are made now under the paragraph which this replaces, namely, Section 68(1)(b) of the 1962 Act, include such matters as the acquisition of land for the purposes of an industrial estate. I concede that in most cases if an acquisition was to be made for those purposes, a local plan would have been prepared. But we know that there will be a period, particularly in the introduction of the new system, when authorities will be preparing their structure plans, proceeding to their action area plans as the first local plans, and then to other local plans. But it may sometimes be necessary for them to make acquisitions of this kind without an approved local plan and for these reasons we must advise the House not to restore this direct link with the development plan but to leave it to the planning authority to be required to make out its case on planning grounds at the time of the compulsory purchase order.

Mr. Speaker: We are debating Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 together, but representations have been made to me that I should allow a Division on Amendment No. 45 instead of No. 44. I am happy to accede to that request.

Mr. Graham Page: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker.
What the Minister of State has just said has made matters worse. Now, the designations on the development plan will become meaningless as soon as the Bill becomes law. Therefore, there will be no development plan designation for a property owner to refer to or a local plan showing the intentions over his property and area. I had hoped that Amendment


No. 44, which called attention to this, was merely declaratory of what was intended.
At present, before property can be compulsorily acquired by the local authority, it has to be designated in the development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition for some specific purpose, and this is the basis of our law of compulsory acquisition. The public is given that warning, and the owner of property knows that, at some time in the future he may suffer a compulsory purchase order.
I had hoped that it was the intention, under Clauses 23 and 24, that that procedure would remain until there was a local plan, so that the owners of property in the area would know the purpose of the planning authority. That was the purpose of Amendment No. 44. If that is not to happen. Amendment No. 45 becomes all the more important. There will be a gap between the abolition of designation on a development plan and the production of a local plan, and in that gap the local authority will have extensive powers of compulsory purchase, if paragraph (d) remains, since it provides that the local authority merely has to say
that it is expedient to acquire the land immediately for a purpose which it is necessary to acheve in the interests of the proper planning of an area in which the land is situated.
There could hardly be a wider power, and the Amendment seeks to restrict it to purposes within the meaning of a local plan, and we would provide for the land to be acquired immediately
… for the purpose of securing its use in a manner not inconsistent with the use proposed for it by the local plan".
in requiring the local authority to designate it in the local plan as subject to compulsory purchase.
To that extent, we are getting away from the existing procedure, which may have been rather, in disregarding some sort of designation altogether, at least to give the public warning by means of the uses proposed in the local plan.
We on this side of the House think, this is one of the most important points in the Bill. We are, in Clause 24, extending very considerably the powers of a local authority to acquire property compulsorily, and to acquire it without giving warning of the specific purpose for which

it acquires it. We would wish to restrict the power so that the public and the owners of property do have some sort of warning, and are able to plan ahead, and know when they may expect in their area a development which may produce compulsory purchase orders on their property. Therefore we ask the Minister to consider again whether our draft—in Amendment No. 45—of paragraph (d) is not far better and far more protective of the individual, and not necessarily too restrictive of the local authority, and that he will accept our Amendment.

Sir J. Foster: I want to add one word. There is a class of persons it is very necessary to protect—the new owners, the persons thinking of settling down, who are about to retire and who invest their life savings in their new home. At the moment such a person can look at the local plans and get some idea whether he will be liable to having his property compulsorily acquired. If there is this general power, after making the fullest inquiry he can, he cannot see that the property is likely to be compulsorily acquired, and he puts his life savings into it—and then his property is compulsorily acquired, the compensation is not enough, and he is disturbed. I think this small safeguard for which we ask is necessary for him.

Mr. MacDermot: I do not think that the point, in practice, works out quite the way the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting. It would be so if in fact the designation procedure had worked the way it was intended to, but, as we all know, it has not. There is the development plan; the prospective purchaser may look at it and say, "I am all right" and he buys; and then the local authority wants to acquire. What happens now is that we have a double-barrelled application of c.p.o. and amendment of the development plan; we get designation being contemporaneous, and not in advance with the sort of warning which is required. We believe that as we go over to the new system of the structure plan and with the local plans within that, a very much better and more certain picture will emerge for the future. Probably most of the problems we are dealing with are transitional problems; for some years ahead we shall be in a transitional phase from the old to the new system.
It is not as though there will be a complete gap, because existing development plans—for what they are worth: I have pointed out their limitations—will continue, but in fact, if we get a departure from the existing development plans, and a new local plan is drawn up for the area, the citizen will certainly be no worse off than he is at present.

Mr. Murton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND IN CONNECTION WITH DEVELOPMENT AND FOR OTHER PLANNING PURPOSES.

Amendment proposed: No. 45, in page 20, leave out lines 32 to 35 and insert:
(d) that it is necessary that the land should be acquired immediately for the purpose of securing its use in a manner not inconsistent with the use proposed for it by the local plan for the area in which it is situate.—[Mr. Rippon.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 150.

Division No. 160.]
AYES
[12.45 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grant, Anthony
Peyton, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant-Ferris, R.

Pink, R. Bonner


Astor, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Pounder, Rafton


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grieve, Percy
Price, David (EasMeigh)


Awdry, Daniel
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Prior, J. M. L.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pym, Francis


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Hawkins, Paul
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Black, Sir Cyril
Higgins, Terence L.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boardman, Tom
Hiley, Joseph
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hill, J. E. B.
Rossi, Hugh (Hontsey)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holland, Philip
Royle, Anthony


Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Hordern, Peter
Scott-Hopkins, James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N &amp; M)
Hunt, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Silvester, Frederick


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sinclair, Sir George


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Corfield, F. V.
Kirk, Peter
Speed, Keith


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
Stainton, Keith


Dance, James
Lane, David
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)



d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Temple, John M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
MacArthur, Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Doughty, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Wall, Patrick


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maginnis, John E.
Weatherhill, Bernard


Eden, Sir John
Maxwell-Hysiop, R. J.
Webster, David


Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Farr, John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Miscampbell, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fortescue, Tim
Montgomery, Fergus
Worsley, Marcus


Foster, Sir John
Morgan, Ceraint (Denbigh)
Wright, Esmond


Gibson-Watt, David
Murton, Oscar
Wylie, N. R.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Nott, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Goodhew, Victor
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Jasper More and


Gower, Raymond
Percival, Ian
Mr. Hector Monro.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Archer, Peter
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Ellis, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Buchan, Norman
English, Michael


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Chapman, Donald
 Ennals, David


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Coe, Denis
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Coleman, Donald
Faulds, Andrew


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dalyell, Tarn
Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston)


Barnett, Joel
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bence, Cyril
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ford, Ben


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Dempsey, James
Forrester, John


Blackburn, F.
Dewar, Donald
Freeson, Reginald


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Gardner, Tony


Booth, Albert:
Dickens, James
Garrett, W. E.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Doig, Peter
Gourlay, Harry


Brooks, Edwin
Dunnett, Jack
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dunwoody, Mrs. Cwyneth (Exeter)
Gregory, Arnold


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, provan)
Eadie, Alex
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)




Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthersen)
Rose, Paul


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackintosh, John P.
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Hamling, William
McNamara, J. Kevin
Sheldon, Robert


Hannan, William
MacPherson, Malcolm
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Harper, Joseph
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mapp, Charles
Skeffington, Arthur


Haseldine, Norman
Marks, Kenneth
Slater, Joseph


Hazell, Bert
Marquand, David
small, William


Heffer, Eric S.
Mendelson, J. J.
Spriggs Leslie


Homer, John
Millan, Bruce
Steet, David (Roxburgh)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Taverne, Dick


Hoy, James
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Tinn, James


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Moyle, Roland



Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Murray, Albert
varley, Eric G.


Hunter, Adam
Newens, Stan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Ogden, Eric
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
O'Malley, Brian
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Orbach, Maurice
Wallace, George


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Orme, Stanley
Watkins, David (Consett)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oswald, Thomas
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Wellbeloved, James


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Whitaker, Ben


Lawson, George
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Clifford (Abertrillery)


Leadbltter, Ted
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lee, John (Reading)
Pavitt, Laurence
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pentland, Norman
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Lubbock, Eric
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Woof, Robert


McBride, Neil
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Yates, Victor


MacColl, James
Price, William (Rugby)



MacDermot, Niall
Rees, Meriyn
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Macdonald, A. H.
Reynolds, G. W.
Mr. Alan Fitch and


McGuire, Michael
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
 Mr. J. D. Concannon.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 21, line 4, leave out from 'and' to end of line 6 and insert:
'with the Greater London Council'.
Mr. Speaker, would it be convenient to deal with Amendment No. 47 at the same time?

Mr. Speaker: If there is no objection, so be it.

Mr. Skeffington: On 26th March we had an interesting discussion in Committee about the position of the G.L.C. As a result of an undertaking I gave, the Opposition withdrew their Amendment which purported to give the powers contained in the Clause to the G.L.C. Amendment No. 46 now does that. Amendment No. 47 makes provision for the necessary consultations between the G.L.C. and the London boroughs and brings them into line with the arrangements for planning authorities outside the Greater London area.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 47, in page 21, line 12, leave out 'London boroughs and county districts' and insert:
'and county districts, the Greater London Council and councils of London boroughs'.— [Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 27

GROUNDS ON WHICH MINISTER MAY REFUSE TO CONFIRM PURCHASE NOTICE.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 22, line 16, leave out paragraph (b).
The position here, as I understand, is that of the planning permission which has been granted in respect of the development of an estate, where the permission contains conditions that parts of the land should be left for open spaces. If a planning permission contains that condition, it would be wrong for the developer to make a further planning application at a later date to develop those open spaces and, upon refusal of that planning application, to claim that he has no reasonable beneficial use of the land and that he should therefore receive compensation for refusal of planning permission. If a condition has been imposed that, in making one development he should leave certain land vacant, it would be most improper if he were to benefit from the refusal of planning permission later for the development of that land.
As I understand it, the prime purpose of the Clause is to declare that in those circumstances the developer shall


not receive any compensation for being refused planning permission, even though the refusal makes the land of no reasonable beneficial use. But the Clause goes much further. It provides for this rule to apply not only when a specific condition has been imposed to keep a certain part of the estate vacant and undeveloped but when the local planning authority in granting the first planning permission contemplated that some of the land would be left as an open space and undeveloped.
The Clause says that when land has a restricted use by virtue of a previous planning permission and permission is then refused the owner shall not be entitled to serve a purchase notice. Subsection (2) says that it is to be treated as having a restricted use if it is part of a larger area in respect of which planning permission was previously granted and, in paragraph (a), a specific condition was imposed, or, in paragraph (b),
the planning permission was granted on an application which contemplated (expressly or by necessary implication) that the part should not be comprised in the development for which planning permission was sought, or should be preserved or laid out as aforesaid.
How is the applicant to know what was in the minds of the local planning authority when it first granted the planning permission if it did not put it into the permission as a condition?
As I read it, paragraph (b) would go much further than imposing an implied restriction on the applicant's land. A local planning authority might well have contemplated that the adjacent land would be vacant in future. If it contemplated that and the owner of that vacant land some years later asked for planning permission the local planning authority could say, "No. Some years ago we contemplated, when giving planning permission for the neighbouring land, that you would keep this as an open space." Under those circumstances it would be fair for the owner of that land to say," You have refused me reasonable beneficial use of my land and I am entitled to serve a purchase notice under Section 129 of the 1962 Act."
The paragraph seems to go much further than is necessary or reasonable to prevent the mischief which I willingly concede exists, the mischief of someone trying to gain an advantage from the

fact that he has developed an area on condition that he leaves certain land vacant and then saying, "I want to develop it. If you refuse me the right to do so I shall put in a purchase notice." That is wrong, but if he does not know after the first planning permission has been granted what implied conditions the local planning authority has contemplated at the time it is grossly unfair to tie him to those implied conditions, when they are not put in his planning permission and are not expressed anywhere, because the paragraph says specifically that the Clause is to apply to conditions which were contemplated "expressly or by necessary implication" when the first planning permission was granted.

Mr. Skeffington: We had an interesting discussion on 26th March on this point. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has accepted that when a specific condition is laid down, it would be wrong to say, "I want to develop on the open space or amenity land", and serve a purchase notice. In an application which came before the planning committee and upon which permission was given where the developer has secured planning permission for the whole of the area because of something which he put in the application without which he might not have got the permission or would have had a condition attached, this case is precisely the same as where a specific condition has been attached. Permission would never have been given in the first place if the layout had not been of sufficient merit to get the sanction of the local planning authority. In those circumstances, a scheme having been approved and the development having been allowed, it is wrong that the developer should at a later stage say, "I do not want to keep this now. I want to build upon it, and serve a purchase notice and compel the authority to pay compensation".
Two points in rebuttal of the hon. Gentleman's argument are these. First, this is an application which the developer has made; it is not something thought up by the planning authority. Secondly, this can relate only to land in the applicant's area. This is clear from subsections (1) and (2). For these reasons, we can see, in practice, no difference between


the two categories. It would be most unfair if the local planning authority had to pay compensation in this case.

Mr. Graham Page: If the land belongs to some other party, do I understand that this still applies? Is that other party prevented from putting in a planning application in relation to that land?

Mr. Skeffington: I am not sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. May I assume that he is referring to planning permission for any land which has a restricted use by virtue of the previous planning permission or which relates to the land of the applicant's area? If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there might be somebody else seeking planning permission, I cannot see how this could operate. If the original scheme had been passed because of the merits of the layout, this will apply equally. On the other hand, the Clause cannot bite on land which was not the subject of the previous planning decision.

Mr. Page: Take the example of two fields next to one another. A planning application does not necessarily have to refer only to the applicant's land. He can put in an application relating to his neighbouring land. He can say that he will develop field A, and he can show on the plan that field B is to be left vacant to provide a nice view for the development on A. The owner of field B can come along some years later and put in an application to develop B, and he would be told that in contemplating the first application it was thought that B would be left vacant. Will this prejudice the second applicant when he applies for development permission for his own land? That is how I interpret paragraph (b).

Mr. Skeffington: The owner will have to be told of any planning permission which relates to other land. There would not be a planning application in relation to the other land, as I see it. If the consideration of the merits of the development includes land in the developer's area, quite clearly the provisions of paragraph (b) apply. If it is an alternative additional scheme outside, I do not think they apply.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 28

NEW DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND QUALIFYING FOR PROTECTION AS BEING AFFECTED BY PLANNING PROPOSALS.

Mr. E. Rowlands: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 22, line 38, after 'a', insert 'proposed'.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with Amendment No. 52 we take Amendment No. 53, in page 22, line 38, leave out second ' in force '.
Amendment No. 54, in page 22, line 45, after 'a', insert 'proposed'.
Amendment No. 55, in page 22, line 45, leave out from 'plan' to 'as' in line 46 and insert:
'for the time being applicable to the district in which it is situated and any alterations thereto (including a plan or alterations made available for inspection in pursuance of (Publicity for Preparation of Local Plans) (2) of this Act, but not yet in force), or is land defined in such a plan or such alterations'.
and Amendment No. 56, in page 22, line 45, leave out 'in force'.

Mr. Rowlands: We spent a lot of time in Committee debating the Clause and the matters relating to planning blight, but we did not come to a conclusive decision. The Committee evenly divided on the subject, with the result that the status quo was preserved only by the vote of the Chairman. It is important that we should return to this subject and to these Amendments.
The question resolves around the right of an individual to serve a purchase notice when his property has been blighted by planning proposals. Under the provisions of the 1962 Act the right is operable only when the development plan has been approved. Although Clause 28 is intended to cover structure plans when approved, as my hon. and learned Friend said in Committee, this does not in any way change the principle relating to the right of the individual to serve a purchase notice. The Amendments aim to change the principle.
Our argument is that the notion of planning blight, and the hardship and distress caused to individual householders and home holders, is appreciated much more fully than it was when the 1959


and 1962 Acts embodied legislation relating to purchase orders. When those Acts were introduced we did not realise what planning blight involved. As a result of major town centre schemes which have been proposed, and the planning network road proposals included in the town centre schemes, planning blight has become a familiar term.
It is now nationally familiar as a result of a T.V. series called "The Newcomers." This features a family in a new town, and the series has recently portrayed the problem of a widow who wanted to sell her house, since it was too large and she had neither the financial means nor the wish to keep it. At the point of sale, discussion of the proposals blighted her property and blighted her sale. The serial did not do justice to her case. I would have written a succeeding episode. In the following episodes, she would have applied to the local authority to purchase her house, under their existing discretionary powers. The local authority would have refused to do so on the ground that no hardship was involved, and she, and the national viewers, would have found that they have no legal rights in such a case. The fate of the widow in "The Newcomers" is that of many of our constituents. We should net let this opportunity pass to do something about it.
1.15 a.m.
As my hon. and learned Friend has said, it is expressly concerned with planning legislation as provided in the Town and Country Planning Acts. It has nothing to do with compensation. Our Amendments try to get to grips with the problem. The existing provisions and even the present proposals in Clause 28 confine the right of the individual to serving a purchase notice only when the structure plan is approved. But planning blight does not occur when the deliberations of the council and the Minister are over. It occurs when the proposals are made. Blight moves in overnight. That is the distinction that we try to make in our Amendments, as compared with the proposals in Clause 28.
I admit that my Amendment is a compromise. I realise that planning blight can occur at an even earlier stage than when the structure plan is produced or published, as these Amendments sug-

gest. However, my aim is to remove one of the chief objections voiced by the Minister in Committee. He said then that, if the Government accepted the Amendments that we put forward, in the case of a variety of proposals for different road routes, for example, a council would find itself having to purchase properties which, in the end, it might not require.
My answer to that is that, if the serving of a notice is confined to when the structure plan is produced or published, by that time, such matters as road routes should be fairly firm proposals. One of the nearest examples of the urban structure plan under the Bill is the proposal put forward in Cardiff by Professor Buchanan, which takes a very similar form. When introducing it, he said that his proposals were not made lightly and could not be challenged lightly. Therefore, the effect of road proposals on individual homes cannot be refuted lightly. That is why we suggest that the individual has the right to serve a purchase notice at the stage when the structure plan is produced and published. That should dispose of the Minister's objection that a local authority would be forced to purchase properties which it might not require.
The other chief objection to our Amendments in Committee was that a local authority would be forced to buy a large number of properties in advance of requirements and would receive an avalanche of requests to purchase. It is said that this would place an enormous financial burden on that local authority. However, the argument takes no account of the much greater burden upon the individual. A local authority might be able to withstand such a burden, but if, as happens in so many cases, a person's house is devalued by half and he finds that he cannot sell his house for half the mortgage that he owes, how much less is he able to withstand the burden?
This objection shows not only a remarkable lack of understanding for the human and personal hardship caused, but a basic misunderstanding of the position. I reject the idea that there would be an avalanche of requests to purchase. It is the existing position which causes the avalanche. If a person feels that he is a prisoner in his semi-detached house, that he cannot sell it and that, as the


years go by, there will be even less chance of selling it, it is then that the avalanche occurs. If he has the security of knowing that he can serve a purchase notice, surely he will take a rational decision and, in many cases, will not serve immediate notice on the local authority, but bide his time. Local authorities, instead of receiving an avalanche, will receive a number of individual applications over a period of time.
This is certainly the pattern that will emerge in my own constituency, I am sure. At the present moment, when people feel they are imprisoned and cannot sell, they are the more determined to try to get out of their properties. The position should not be left as it is. It is impossible to leave the individual in the position of having to rely on an advisory Circular which is often ignored by the planning authority. It has been ignored in Cardiff, and I am sure by other planning authorities. It is restrictive and depends on the individual proving hardship.
Why should a person have to have a nervous breakdown before he can sell his house, or compulsory promotion by the Civil Service before he is entitled to seek a decision from the local planning authority? Why should he have to suffer hardship before he can serve a purchase notice? To put an individual in this position is ridiculous and degrading.
Whatever the practical difficulties are of implementing these Amendments, whatever the pros and cons, it must be said that planning legislation is aimed at holding the balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of the community. In my opinion, under the present provisions relating to planning blight and the serving of a purchase notice, the individual gets a raw deal. If it is argued that the local authority cannot afford to finance the purchase of these properties in advance of requirement, then I think we should assert the golden principle of planning—that if the community cannot afford to give the individual a square deal then it cannot afford the development at all.
For this reason, I am moving this Amendment.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Rowlands) always argues his case most persuasively, and speaking for myself—and I think other hon. Members—one always listens with the greatest pleasure to his speeches.
I confess at once that the case he makes out is a forceful one, and I do not pretend it is an easy one to reply to. Let me begin by reminding the House of what we have made clear from the start of this Bill—that it is a Town and Country Planning Bill which does not set out to be a compensation Bill to amend the compensation law. We have certain compensation provisions, including this extension of blight compensation provisions, because some amendments to the compensation law were absolutely necessary in consequence of the changes in planning law which are being made. We have adhered firmly to that principle in the Bill.
I told the House that there are a number of compensation matters which I would have been glad of an opportunity to try to deal with in this Bill, but I realised that if I sought to do that I would be opening the door to many other proposals to alter compensation law and we would have on our hands what is already a sufficiently complex Bill turned into a mammoth Bill.
As hon. Members know, very careful studies and memoranda have been prepared and submitted to our Ministry for amendment of the compensation code. These are under careful consideration, and that applies to the field of blight and the kind of matters which my hon. Friend has been referring to.
My hon. Friend rejected, I thought a little summarily, my argument that there was a connection between what he is asking for and compensation for planning blight and the general compensation code. I urge upon him that there is such a connection. He is asking us to widen compensation for planning blight so that it would cover cases where, at the end of the day, the person's land may never be taken at all. We all know that one of the grounds most strongly urged for revision of the compensation code is where people are affected injuriously by works which are being carried out but where their land is not taken. The motorway case is the familiar example. The


person whose land is not taken may nevertheless be subjected to nuisance and to having the value of his land depreciated by the motorway and he does not have the right to compensation.
If one were to admit the principle of extension of blight compensation in the way my hon. Friend suggests, one would be brought face to face with that other issue and any solution must be coherent and defensible across the board. This is just to explain to the House the sort of complexities raised in proposals of this kind.
What we have done here—and it is accepted as right—is to extend the right to claim planning blight from the much more general and vaguer proposals contained in structure plans to those contained in existing development plans with their precise designations. But we propose that that right should only exist from the time when the structure plan has been approved by the Minister, and that corresponds to the existing provisions where the planning applied in relation to the development plans only operates from the time those plans are confirmed.
It would be anomalous if one had a situation in which some part of the country had gone over to the new system of planning blight rights whereas other areas were still operating on the old development plan system. That would not be defensible.
My hon. Friend did not define what he meant by the word "proposed". In reading his Amendments, I thought he meant at the preparatory stage when proposals are published and subject to publication procedures. I think he indicated that this was not what he had in mind and I suppose that he actually means when the formal stages have begun. I think that is also implicit in Amendment No. 55, where the Opposition propose it to apply where local plan proposals have been made available for inspection, which would mean when the formal stages of the adoption began. Then the planning blight provisions would be comparable.
For the general reasons I have given, I do not think that it would be right for us to go even that far. I hope that what I have said indicates that I am not try-

ing to slam the door on principle against what has been proposed. Nor do I suggest that I am committing the Government to legislation in this respect in order to deal with it. But this is part of a whole complex of proposals we are studying fully and carefully at present. Meanwhile, I take the point about the fact that the circular urging local authorities to use their discretionary powers to acquire such land in cases where hardship is caused is not being uniformly applied by local authorities throughout the country.
1.30 a.m.
Once this Bill has been passed we propose, in the circular we shall send out explaining these new blight provisions, to state again the principles on which local authorities will proceed. By "hardship" we do not mean, in my hon. Friend's phrase, that people would have to have a nervous breakdown before they would be able to persuade a local authority that they are suffering hardship sufficient to justify that local authority acquiring their land before the stage when it could legally be made to do so. In spite of the spirit in which I have replied to the Amendment, I must ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Graham Page: We agree with the Minister that this is not a compensation Bill—we will expect more when that Bill comes forward. This deals with one narrow point, on what is not, strictly, compensation as such, but the power of the owner-occupier, in particular the residential owner-occupier, to oblige a local authority to acquire his property. That is the narrow front of compensation dealt with in the Bill, and dealt with by these Amendments. The argument that this is not a compensation Bill should not weigh against Amendments of this sort, which are directly related to the provisions of the Bill. They have to do with purchase notice, the amendment of the law as it affects the purchase notice, and the qualifications for serving such a notice.
The Minister quoted the motorway cases and said that by accepting these Amendments we would be opening the door to claims to treat fairly those injuriously affected but whose land is not taken away compulsorily, or who are not


directly affected by proposed development. This is incorrect. At present the person not directly affected by the development would not have the right to serve a purchase notice, and these Amendments would not change that. They would only say that a person directly affected could claim when actual blight exists, and not only when some theoretical blight or some stage is reached in the process.
This is not drawing a line between what is blight and what is not, but is drawing a fictitious line somewhere along the production of development proposals. To succeed with a purchase notice, the owner-occupier serving it must prove that he has been unable to dispose of his property at the price which it was reasonable to expect for it, had it not been subject to development proposals. There is no extension of that principle. The person has to show that the property really has become blighted by the proposals. At present he has to show that the property has become blighted to the extent that he cannot sell it at the price that he ought to have been able to sell it. Then he comes up against the brick wall that it must be shown, somewhere on the plan, to be subject to development. In Amendment 55 we have taken words which appears elsewhere in the Bill. In paragraph 58, page 94, the Bill gives the right to the Land Commission to exercise compulsory purchase powers if it can show that there are matters in the draft local plan, or the copy of the local plan before it becomes a formal plan, showing certain developments.
It has been recognised there that the plan at the stage when it is prepared and is to be submitted to the Minister has an effect on the properties there shown. We have merely taken those words and said in effect that the Land Commission should not be given this privilege, that this can be applied to the ordinary individual. This is a stage at which his land becomes blighted, when it is shown in the local plan to be subject to development. It is a false distinction to say that it is not blighted until the Minister has approved the plan.
Of course, blight attaches to a property immediately the public know that it is

subject to this form of development. The public do not know any more about it, and it will not affect the purchase any more because the Minister has approved the plan. It will affect them immediately it is made public. That is when we say that blight starts and when the owner should be able to make a purchase notice. We are trying to get to the point where blight occurs, and away from some false distinction and unreal line drawn in the process of development proposals.
It would be much fairer to have this stage at the point where it is known to the public, to prospective purchasers of this property, that this is the effect of the plan. Where it is a formal plan, the Minister's stamp on it does not matter. Where a plan is published as being the final thoughts of the local planning authority, everyone believes that it will be the final plan. It would be an extraordinary and exceptional case where a Minister sends a plan back to a local authority to think about it again, so to put the blight stage at the point of adoption is false, and we would prefer to put it back to where the plan is proposed by the local planning authority.
I hope that we can have some better assurances from the Minister. I would have liked to have seen it in this Bill. Possibly our drafting is not correct, but this could be included at a later stage. We should not be asked to wait for the compensation bill for this.
This Bill deals with purchase notices. If we alter the law about purchase notices in this Bill, I have a feeling that when we have the compensation bill, they will say that the law was reformed on purchase notices as recently as last July and we cannot do it all again, and that the compensation bill is not a purchase notice bill. Let us do it now.

Mr. Rowlands: I appreciate the sympathetic consideration given to the Amendment, but I reiterate the point I made, that I think it is nothing to do with compensation. We are being told that if one put these Amendments into this Clause, subsequent Clauses could cover cases where people's properties are not involved. If the local authority can show that there is no need or demand for the property, although it might have an injurious effect, the provisions of the Clause would not apply.


It is entirely concerned with the right to serve a purchase notice which has not been in legislation relating to compensation, but in legislation relating to Town and Country Planning. It is in the 1962 Act and the 1959 Act. For those reasons, the Amendment deserves to be put into the Bill, not in any future Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House at this stage that there are some 40 debates on Amendments ahead of us, apart from those on Government Amendments.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 57, in page 23, line 4, leave out from ' force' to end of line 10.
I will take your word of advice, Mr. Speaker, and endeavour to move this Amendment briefly. It is a short point.
Clause 28(l)(c) states that property is blighted to the extent that a purchase notice may be served if the land is subject to a compulsory purchase order under certain enactments. I have not been able to discover whether the statutes set out there cover all the cases in which a compulsory purchase order can be outstanding on property or whether this is a selection of compulsory purchase orders, and, if it is a selection, why. Is there any principle running through these several different types of compulsory purchase order? Why not leave it merely with the words "if the property is subject to a compulsory purchase order"? Everyone who reads a Bill of this kind knows what a compulsory purchase order is. This would make it clear. If there are other compulsory purchase orders—and I am sure there are—other than those mentioned in the Clause, why are they excluded? Do they not cause just as much blight as those under the Water Act, the Water Resources Act or the New Towns Act?

Mr. Skeffington: The Government feel disposed to accept the Amendment, although we do not think that it will make any real difference. Nevertheless, for the sake of peace and quiet at this time of the night, this is a good gesture.
The only possible compulsory purchase order which is not covered is in Section 11 of the Pipelines Act, 1962. But I fail to see how this could give rise to the problems intended to be covered by

Section 138 of the Town and Country Planning Act.
The reason that the particular statutes have been spelt out is because we wanted to be sure that the definition was right. No harm will be done in accepting the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 23, line 13, at end insert:
(d) is land which appears from the route or the approximate route of a proposed road or footpath—

(i) as shown in the development plan, or
(ii) as indicated in information received by the local planning authority from the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State (if it be land in Wales) or a local highway authority
to be land on such road or footpaths may be provided.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 225, in page 87, leave out lines 12 to 24.

Mr. Allason: Clause 28 lays down a new criteria for blight. In the last discussion we showed that there was a tendency for the blight provisions to be contracted. The blight provisions are extended in the Schedule and by Amendment 225 we should like to bring them into Clause 28 and extend them so that they are logical. The Amendment deals with blight in the path of a proposed road or footpath, which tend to be long term proposals, with completion following after some time.
1.45 a.m.
The Minister of State told us that the Bill does not amend compensation, but the 1962 Act laid down conditions for purchase notices which the Bill will change. So the Government cannot say that we cannot extend blight provisions because they relate to compensation. They are redrawing the line and cannot complain at a proposal to redraw it logically. I thought, on the last Amendment, that the Minister of State was about to withdraw Clause 28 altogether, because he was so terrified at changing anything to do with compensation. The new subsection to be inserted in the principal Act, permitting blight in cases of proposed main roads, is very welcome,


but it is extraordinary to confine it to trunk roads.
I quoted a case from my constituency of a cafe on the line of a subsidiary road near the line of a by-pass. Had it been on the line of the by-pass, which is to be provided in the early 1970's— the previous Minister of Transport, by a slip of the tongue, referred to "early 1970", but her Department smartly corrected that when we checked—it would have come under these new blight provisions. The subsidiary road is necessary for the by-pass, either to give access or to divert another road beneath the by-pass. This is a ridiculous situation, because, if the blight were caused by the by-pass, a purchase notice would be possible and compensation could be taken; because it is a local road in exactly the same circumstances, this is not possible. The position is that in respect of a local road there are substantial discrepancies.
This only occurs under Section 138 (1) (f) of the principal Act which reads:
is land shown on plans approved by a resolution of a local highway authority as land comprised in the site of a highway as proposed to be constructed, improved or altered by that authority.
The operative words there are
approved by a resolution of
the authority. In this case, although the route of this road is well known, nevertheless, rather naturally, the local authority has not approved the construction of the road, and, therefore, there can be no compensation. That cafe is absolutely blighted, but, nevertheless, there can be no compensation.
I cannot see any reason why the two sorts of roads should not be dealt with absolutely pari passu. Therefore, the effect of Amendment No. 58 is to do what paragraph 30 of Schedule 5 does, and, in addition, to include local roads as well. Amendment No. 225 is purely consequential on Amendment No. 58.

Mr. Skeffington: I shall seek to assure the House that the major points in the two Amendments are already met. The first part of the Amendment would move the main provisions of paragraph 30 of the Schedule from the Schedule and into the body of the Bill, with this additional category of land for which compensation

proposals for blight will, when the Bill becomes law, apply. There is no clash of principle here. The Government were very anxious to add this additional category where either the route is shown on the development plan or it could be sufficiently precisely indicated by the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State for Wales to the local authority as being the route, therefore enabling the consequential benefits of the blight provisions to apply. As the hon. Gentleman will realise, of course, this may come at a very much later stage when a draft order has been confirmed. Had it been possible to have concluded all the preliminary steps which had to be taken before we were in a position to bring this matter before the Committee I think we might have well have put the provision in here, but we had passed Clause 28, and so it was put, not inappropriately, as it happens, in the Schedule.
So, on the first point, there is no clash of principle. It is a question of convenience, and to transfer the provision now would require a considerable amount of alteration which I could not recommend the House to accept.
In any event, the matter is further complicated in the Amendment by the reference to footpaths. This is unnecessary because urban footpaths, which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, are either highways of themselves or, if they are not, they are parts of highways and are covered under the definition in the Highways Act. In rural areas, if the hon. Gentleman is thinking of rights of way limited to pedestrians, no problem arises because in the normally accepted use of the word "footpath" it is unlikely—indeed, I cannot imagine how such a case could occur—that cases of blight would occur.
The third part of the Amendment calls for a notification from the local highway authority and the Ministry of Transport. This is unnecessary because if a road has been approved by a resolution of a local highway authority as land comprised in the site of a highway as proposed to be constructed, improved or altered by that authority, it is already covered by Section 138(l)(f) of the 1962 Act. I trust, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Allason: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that any land which the Minister of Transport proposes to provide for a trunk or special road comes within that definition and that every road in the country is covered? I did not gather from what was said in Committee that every road, including every minor road, was covered. Apart from footpaths, the Amendment is designed to cover minor roads provided by local authorities, aside from the main roads provided by the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. Skeffington: I was making the point that the proposals in the Amendment, in so far as they relate to roads affected by the notification procedure, are not necessary because the matter is covered by Section 138(1)(f) of the 1962 Act. The other types of road— road diversions and roads acknowledged under the Highways Act and so on—are covered by Section 138(l)(e) of the 1962 Act. I was dealing with those categories of roads and was not going beyond that.

Mr. Graham Page: The Amendment goes a lot further than that, as is its intention. It says, in effect, that property shall be legally blighted, so that a purchase notice could be served, if there is information to the local planning authority from the highway authority, whether it be the Minister of Transport, the Secretary of State for Wales or the local authority.
It is in this respect that the Amendment goes further than the Amendment introduced by the Government in Committee. We were pleased when the Government introduced that Amendment, which was to the effect that if the Ministry of Transport gave information to the local planning authority that it intended to build a road in a certain position, then the land there would be treated as blighted, and a purchase notice could be issued. However, we could not see the distinction between Ministry of Transport roads—trunk and special roads—and the ordinary roads of the local authority, since there is just the same possibility of blight.
As the law stands—and the Parliamentary Secretary cited Section 138(1)(f) of the 1962 Act—to qualify for the service of a purchase notice one must show, first, that the land for the local authority road is shown on a plan. One then

has to show that it is shown on an approved plan. Then one has to show that it is shown on a plan approved by a resolution of the local highway authority.
Before all that happens it is well known to the public, through discussions in the council and in the highways committee, that it is intended to put a road in a certain area and property thereby becomes blighted. A false line is drawn at the point where the plan is approved by resolution. We want to push that line further back. The Government have already pushed it back concerning trunk roads and special roads. They have acknowledged the point at which real blight occurs when the Ministry informs the local planning authority. It should be recognised in the case of ordinary roads when information comes from the local planning authority to the local highway authority—which probably is the same—in discussion of plans without waiting for a formal resolution.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Skeffington: I am seized of the point. I had misunderstood the Amendment. I do not know whether that was my fault or whether it was due to the way in which the Amendment is drafted. I had assumed from the wording that the local authority road was one which had already been approved by resolution of the council, which of course, would bring it within the terms of Section 138(1)(f), but I see that the purpose of the Amendment is to do that at an earlier stage.
In cases where the Government feel that they can move further, there is a road definitely marked on the development plan or one which is indicated in documents which are sufficiently accurate as to the route approved by the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State for Wales. If the hon. Member reflects on this he will realise that it is extraordinarily difficult to bring forward blighting consequences until the local authority has reached the stage of precision we are providing for in the development either on the development plan or in documents which come from the Ministers concerned.
What has been said by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) leads me to believe that the


blighting consequences might follow preliminary discussions in the council chamber. I do not think this is workable. I do not think one could invite the House to agree to a proposal which depended upon such vague considerations as the hon. Member has outlined.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman has accepted this imprecision in relation to trunk roads and special roads. It needs only a little careful drafting to accept the same sort of imprecision for local highway authority roads, recognising the point at which blight occurs.

Mr. Skeffington: I was careful in Committee to spell out that in the indications which the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State for Wales will give, there will be sufficient indication and precision to enable the local authority to deal with blighting consequences. In what the hon. Member said and what the Amendment provides, there is not sufficient precision and for that reason I could not advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that there is too great precision now in Section 138(1)(f), which says that:
land shown on plans approved by a resolution of a local highway authority.
That means that the authority is about to make up a road rather than that it has got the plan drawn.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 60, in page 23, line 13, at end insert:
(d) is land which has suffered subsidence damage as defined by section 1(1) of the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957'.
Would it be convinent, Mr. Speaker, to discuss also Amendment No. 67, in page 26, line 7, at end insert:
(4) For the purpose of section 28(l)(d) of this Act and of section 147 of the principal Act the appropriate authority shall be the National Coal Board.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Page: I am obliged, Sir. This, again, is a question of when blight may occur and when it would be fair to allow the owner-occupier to serve a purchase notice. It is proposed in Amend-

ment No. 60 that the owner-occupier should be entitled to serve a purchase notice when his land has been blighted by subsidence. Under the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1957, the owner is entitled to claim to have his property repaired if it suffers subsidence damage. Section 1(1) of that Act says:
'subsidence damage' means any damage (including an alteration of the level or gradient of property not otherwise damaged such as to affect the fitness of that property for use for the purposes mentioned …
in the Act.
Frequently property is subject to subsidence and becomes impossible to dispose of. Harrowing stories can be related of new property purchased in mining areas by those who may be of very slender means and who have perhaps purchased subject to a building society mortgage; and then frequently, because of new methods of mining, subsidence occurs and the property is severely damaged. The only redress an owner-occupier has is to have his property patched up by the National Coal Board. I say "patched up" deliberately. I have seen such houses. When subsidence occurs, frequently gaps are left in the interior walls—not in the exterior walls, because that would leave the property not wind- and water-tight. The doors are askew. The floors are sloping. Yet the Board claims that the house is fit. It may be fit for the purpose of shelter, but it is not fit as a property and is certainly not saleable.
In cases where the property has been blighted in this case, greater regard is now paid to the hardship which occurs than was paid even 10 or 11 years ago. Having recognised the purchase notice procedure when property is otherwise blighted, we should recognise it in the case of subsidence. The National Coal Board is responsible for the execution of
such works … as may be necessary to render the damaged property reasonably fit for use for the purposes for which, at the date immediately before the damage occurred, it was … used".
It is not sufficient to compensate those who have had their home so grievously twisted and made so rotten for them in future. It is not sufficient merely to patch it up. They should be able to dispose of the property. They should be able to oblige the Board, which, after all, is responsible for the mining, for the


subsidence which has occurred and for the damage arising from that subsidence, to purchase the property from them when it gets into that state.
I appreciate that this is rather remote from what we have previously discussed. But it is strictly connected with a form of blight and with the purchase notice procedure. As we have expanded the purchase notice procedure in other ways, we should recognise the very serious case where mere patching up is insufficient for those who have so suffered by subsidence of their home.

Mr. Skeffington: I do not know whether it is the early hour or the hon. Gentleman's ingeniousness, but until I saw the Amendment I did not think that we should be discussing compensation due to mining subsidence in a planning Bill.
The compensation proposals we are introducing and extending here deal with planning blight—depreciation of the value of a property because of the threat or possible threat of acquisition for public purposes. The Bill does not deal with compensation which may arise in a hundred ways as a result of mechanical or other activities. The Amendment would be wholly inappropriate in this Bill.
The Amendment would also be completely ineffective, and I am surprised, because usually I am filled with admiration for both the ingenious and very comprehensive way in which the hon. Gentleman puts forward his Amendments. It would be ineffective because all that the National Coal Board would have to do would be to serve a counter notice, like any other authority in its category, under Section 140 of the principal Act. Therefore, even if the Amendment were accepted it would have no effect in enabling anybody to get one penny compensation for subsidence.
Compensation for consequences of mining is governed by the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Acts of 1950 and 1957. I gathered that the hon. Gentleman's point was that the compensation payable under them is insufficient. That may or may not be so. I do not know, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to remedy these matters he must attack another Statute and not the Bill.

Mr. Graham Page: I had hoped that the Minister might at least say that he had consulted the Minister of Power and that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to consider this. It is a very serious matter. If it cannot be dealt with in a planning Bill, at least we have staked a claim that it should be considered, and the point is not put forward frivolously.
We should not be prepared to accept the hardship that results from subsidence as the House has done in the past. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will ask his right hon. Friend to read this very short debate, and perhaps it can be dealt with in another way.
I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the National Coal Board could defeat the provisions of the Amendment by a counter notice. Under Section 140 of the principal Act any local authority can serve a counter notice, but must prove that it has a right to the effects of the notice.
However, the Amendment has raised the point, and I assure the hon. Gentlemen that my pleading will not cease here. I shall find other opportunities to put this forward, and I hope that this has pushed the door open a little bit.
Under the circumstances, I recognise that the Amendment is not entirely appropriate for this Bill, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29.

EXTENSION OF GROUNDS OF OBJECTION TO PURCHASE OF CLAIMANT'S INTEREST.

Amendment made: No. 61, in page 23, line 40, after ' (e)' insert ' (ee) '.— [Mr. Skeffington.]

2.15 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 62, in page 23, line 41, after ' that' to insert ' (a)'.

Mr. Speaker: We can take at the same time Amendment No. 63 in page 24, line 4, at end insert:
'and
(b) the appropriate authority has offered to take a lease of the hereditament or agricultural unit (as the case may be) for the said period upon terms and at a rent to be settled as if such lease were a regulated tenancy under the Rent Act 1965'.

Mr. Page: Amendment No. 62 is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 63.
Clause 29 permits an acquiring authority to defeat a purchase notice by the answer that it does not require the property for 15 years. I cannot help feeling that this will not relieve the property of blight in any way. First, there is no obligation on the authority not to change its mind. I doubt whether the public will think that, the local authority having said, "Our present intention is not to acquire the property for 15 years", this will necessarily be its intent throughout the 15 years. There is absolutely no obligation on the local authority to abide by that intention. The very next day it can alter its mind and say, "We now intend to acquire it", and "We now intend to carry out this development". Therefore, the assurance, if assurance it be, is worthless in removing blight. It merely means that the property may have a future life of 15 years. In those circumstances, the authority should be prepared to compensate the owner in some form.
In all purchase notice cases, we are dealing with an owner who wishes to get out of the property. This is at the basis of a purchase notice. He has to prove to the authority that he has tried to sell the property and cannot sell it at a reasonable price. So first he must show that he is genuinely trying to sell. We are dealing with an owner-occupier who desires to get out of the house. Perhaps he has moved his work and has to go to some other town. This is the basis of the whole proceeding. If he finds that the property is blighted, he cannot sell because the prospective purchasers know about the blight and then serves a purchase notice on the authority and is told, "We do not want it for 15 years". This will not alter his need to get out of the house and to get himself a new home. The authority should compensate him to the extent of providing him with some sort of income from the property which he has to leave. He is unable to sell it at a reasonable price. There is no reason why he should not be able to let it and the authority should be required to offer to take the property on lease.
I do not think that this can be in any way harmful to the authority. I find that most authorities are only too

anxious to acquire residential property in order to shorten their waiting lists. This seems a fair compromise if the 15-year rule is to be retained. I do not like the 15-year rule at all. I do not think it relieves the hardship of blight in any way. But if the Government are keen on having it, let us have some sort of compromise, that the owner-occupier will be able to require the local authority to take a lease of the property for that 15 years. He then will be able to obtain an advance on the property so that he may purchase another property where he has to live. This is only a form of compromise. I would like Clause 29 to go altogether, but if it must stay we should relieve the hardship of the owner-occupier who finds his property blighted or semi-blighted in this way.

Mr. Skeffington: We realise that the Opposition have never liked the 15-year proposal, and I do not want to rehearse all the arguments why it is thought, by individual owners and the rest of the community, that where there is not an immediate use, or where there is no use for 15 years, this piece of mechanism brings in a degree of certainty, which has been accepted by most people outside the House who are interested in the matter.
The proposal that the hon. Gentleman has put forward would not be very satisfactory, even for the owner. I doubt whether it would be satisfactory for the local authority. I suppose there might be a use for temporary or semipermanent residential accommodation in a suitable property, but the Amendment would apply to a wide range of property. There would be very little in it for the owner. He would be unable to realise his capital if there were merely a lease taken. We have had no indication that local authorities are enthusiastic about the proposal.
The amendment must be regarded as a general attack on the 15-year proposal, and I could not advise the House to accept it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 64, in page 25, line 2, leave out 'or' and insert:
'to sell the whole of the hereditament, or (in the case of an agricultural unit) the whole of the affected area, which he has required the authority to purchase.
(8) Subsection (6) above shall not affect the right of a claimant under'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 30.

COMPENSATION FOR COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF LAND IN CLEARANCE AREAS AND OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS.

Amendment made: No. 65, in page 25, line 34, leave out 'section 59 'and insert: 'Part III'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 31.

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS OF PART VIII OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 25, line 46, at end insert:
(3) In section 138(3)(a) of the principal Act the words 'and the interest in question is the interest of an owner-occupier of the hereditament' shall be omitted.
This is an amendment to Section 138(3)(a) of the principal Act, namely, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962. Section 138 of the 1962 Act sets out the qualifications for serving a purchase notice and, in particular, the interest which has to be held in the property before one can qualify for serving a purchase notice.
Subsection (3) of Section 138 reads:
An interest in the whole or part of a hereditament shall be taken to be an interest qualifying for protection under these provisions if, on the date of service of a notice under the next following section in respect thereof, either—
(a) the annual value of the hereditament does not exceed such amount as may be prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph by an order made by the Minister, and the interest in question is the interest of an owner-occupier of the hereditament, or
The alternative is
in a case not falling within the preceding paragraph, the interest in question is the interest of a resident owner-occupier of a hereditament.
So, in both cases, one must be the owner-occupier to be entitled to serve a purchase notice. In a case where one is not a resident owner-occupier, the value must not exceed a certain value prescribed by the Minister.
The Amendment seeks to remove the necessity for being the owner-occupier of the hereditament, and this will apply to business premises. But there would still be the limit of the annual value. So that, if the Amendment were accepted, there would not be a flood of purchase notices of very expensive large properties.

It would still be restricted to the smaller property coming within the annual value limits, but it would not be restricted to the owner-occupier of that type of property.
There are many cases in which business premises are not necessarily owner-occupied, yet great hardship may occur from the blighting of those premises to those who have their assets in that business. It seems fair, at this stage of development in our reforms of the purchase notice procedure, that we should recognise the hardship which occurs in those cases by amending the original code, still keeping a limit on the rateable value of the premises, so that claims are made only in respect of comparatively small business but that there should not be this restriction on the rights which affects the form in which the business is held. This is where the hardship frequently occurs.

Mr. MacDermot: The effect of the Amendment would be to extend the operation of the blight provisions to landlords of hereditaments. This has always been resisted, primarily on the ground that it would place a severe burden on the acquiring authorities.
There are not the same hardship considerations in such cases as there are with owner-occupiers. Landlords are not likely to be under the same compulsion to sell and, judging by the representations that we have received, there is not the same feeling that they are dealt with unfairly because the blight provisions do not apply to them. Even when they sell, the price is not likely to be affected in the same way as the price paid for property occupied by the purchaser.
After all, for him the property is an investment and as such is a financial transaction. Since market value would be paid on any ultimate acquisition, the threat of future acquisition should not have the same damaging effect as it does in the case of houses that people buy as their homes. Then again, owner-occupiers are unlikely to sell their properties or businesses unless they genuinely wish to or have to move, whereas a landlord can choose his own time and can foist unwanted property on to a local authority as a way of realising his capital.
I think I have said enough to show that there are very different considerations


applicable for the two cases, and we think it right to adhere to the position that has been accepted hitherto.

Amendment negatived.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in page 26, line 12, leave out 'the major' and insert 'a substantial'.
This is an Amendment which was requested by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). He said that the paragraph might be acceptable if it were "a major part" and even more acceptable if it were "a substantial part". I am proposing that it should be more acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 69, in page 26, line 13, leave out from "the" to end of line 17 and insert:
'words "six months before the date of service" there shall be substituted the words "twelve months before the date of service"; and if any question arises as mentioned in subsection (3) above, subsections (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) of the said section 149 shall then apply with the substitution for the reference to twelve months before the date of service of a reference to that period extended by so long as it takes to obtain a determination of the question'.
This Amendment does two things. In the first part it removes a possible ambiguity, which again was pointed out by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). The second part is a further improvement in the protection for the owner-occupier. It deals with the problem of timing that can occur if a question arises as to which is the appropriate authority for the service of a blight notice.
The effect of the Amendment is that the time required to determine that question does not count against the period within which an owner-occupier remains qualified to serve the notice.

Mr. Allason: We are grateful to the Minister for this substantial improvement in the Bill. It was a pretty good nonsense, but now at least the casual reader will be able to understand what on earth is meant.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33.

NEW PROVISIONS RESTRICTING DEMOLITION ETC. OF LISTED BUILDINGS.

Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 26, line 45, at end insert—
(2) If the owner or occupier of a listed building objects to that listing in the manner prescribed to the Minister, the Minister shall give such person an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by him for that purpose; and the decision of the Minister thereupon shall be deemed to be action on the part of the Minister under section 176(3) of the principal Act.
Mr. Speaker, you will be glad to hear that we are now moving on to another part of the Bill which is of considerable interest to most hon. Members because it deals with historic buildings.
The Bill very greatly extends the effects of listing by the Minister. To some listing is a privilege, and to some listing is a nuisance, but I am sure we all agree it is desirable to preserve ancient and historic buildings, and the Bill takes considerable steps in this direction.
At the same time I think we would agree that it is the duty of the Bill to protect owners in borderline cases from the consequences, sometimes very harsh consequences, of listing.
In the Committee the Minister of State was discussing the possibility of giving an appeal against listing. We had originally suggested that there ought to be re-listing of every building in the country at present listed because the rules are being changed. The Minister of State said this would be a mammoth task, would unduly strain Government resources, and would be inappropriate.
So the alternative was the question of of a second appeal against listing, because there are rights of representation and possible appeal against initial listing. We suggested that this should therefore be available upon the Bill taking effect, and the Minister was resisting this. But then he did become convinced that there was a case where there was a wish to appeal at the point of sale. The hon. and learned Gentleman said:
I should like to consider the suggestion that has just been made to see whether it is possible to devise a right of appeal at the point of sale. Like the hon. Member. I foresee difficulties of definition as to what is the


point at which the right of appeal would arise. I should like to think about the matter further." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 2nd April, 1968; c. 794.]
I can sec that it is difficult to draft restrictions to confine the right of appeal to a bona fide point of sale because who can define a point of sale? It is possible to arrange a bogus offer in order to get an appeal against listing. In consequence, although the Minister promised to look at this again, there is no Government Amendment down to deal with the matter.
But there should be an appeal against listing. It should not be encouraged but it should be available, because we have admitted that there is a need for an appeal at point of sale, and if there is an admitted need it should be met even if the gates are open wider than the Minister would wish. Therefore, this Amendment provides in simple terms for a right of appeal by the owner or occupier of a listed building to the Minister against the listing. It could be hedged round with further restrictions—for example, that there should be only one right of appeal— but it is desirable that there should be a right of appeal. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows in his heart that this is so.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The Amendment seeks to protect the owner whose building perhaps only just got on the list and should not perhaps be on it. This difficulty has arisen because the list is very large. The aim of the Ministry is to list every building which could possibly be of historical and architectural importance. I wonder why the Minister rejected the idea of having a graded statutory list. When listing began, the buildings were placed on a provisional list in various grades. Grade I buildings were those of such national and historical interest that there could be no question of their being destroyed except in the gravest national crisis or for some other overwhelming reason, whereas those buildings further down the list were regarded as those which should be preserved if possible but which would have to be removed if development of one sort or another was pressing. If the Minister had adopted the idea of a graded statutory list, many of the difficulties likely to arise would not arise.

Mr. MacDermot: I do not see how the question of grading would help on this problem about the right of appeal. To answer the hon. Gentleman, I understand that there proved to be difficulties about the definition to write the grading into the Statute. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is grading in practice. There are grade one buildings, of the kind he mentioned, grade two starred, and un-starred and grade three, which are not on the statutory list at all. Administratively this seems to work.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hemp-stead (Mr. Allason) has relieved me of trying to explain to the House why we have found it impossible to define a category to meet the particular point we were dealing with in Committee. As I predicted, we did not find it possible, although we made great efforts to do so. It is impracticable. We come to the basic question: should there be a universal right of appeal against listing, or should the right of appeal be confined to the points at which the disadvantages, if there be any, of being listed are being felt to the detriment of the owner-occupier, as is the case with the Bill as drafted.
For example, if he wants to do some work to his building and is refused consent, he can then appeal against the listing. When an enforcement notice is served upon him, and he thinks that the building is wrongly listed, one of the grounds on which he can appeal against the notice is by saying that the building ought never to have been listed. The reason why we have confined it in this way is administrative. It is that there is a limited number of highly skilled staff doing this work. Everyone interested in the subject agrees that what is imperative is to finish the first listing, which is very nearly completed. There are about four districts left in the country.
Then we have to finish the revision, which has already been started in many areas, and which is likely to lead to a substantial increase in the number of listed buildings—perhaps as much as a 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. increase. That is a task which will take many years to achieve, even though we have authority to double the staff doing this work. Knowing the restriction on expansion of


civil servants, this is an earnest of the seriousness we attach to this work.
Even with a doubling of the staff, it will take many years to complete this work. If we had a universal system of appeals those staffs would be liable, at any moment to be called from their work in order to travel maybe across the country, to attend some inquiry to give evidence and defend their listing. We feel that this system would cause the administrative machinery to break down, and hold up the whole system. That is why we are confining the right to firm appeals, to the point where it hurts. There is an informal remedy, which has real value, and which is always available. It is that anyone whose building is listed, who wants to know the reasons for that listing, if he wishes to challenge it, has only to write to the Ministry and ask. He will be provided with a full written statement of the reason for the listing.
If then, objections in writing are made about those, they will be considered and the listing will be reconsidered in the light of those objections. This is an informal right of appeal, but it will not have the same time-consuming effect upon the skilled staff as would result if we were to give a universal right of appeal.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Is this informal type of appeal subject to the activities of the Parliamentary Commissioner in the event of a complaint?

Mr. MacDermot: Yes. These are officials acting on behalf of our Department.

Mr. Allason: The Minister has admitted that there is a requirement for the appeal at point of sale that he wished to find, but could not.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member is putting words into my mouth. If hon. Members want me to go into this, I would say that, with my colleagues, I thought that, not only is it difficult of definition, but that it is very hard to find an identifiable case where any real hardship would be suffered by a person at the point of sale which he could not overcome by putting in planning application.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Allason: I am grateful to him. I was coming to that. The appeal is that the building should not have been listed in the first place and that it is not of sufficient merit to go into the new listing system which has a tough series of requirements, while it might have gone in under the old list. The Minister of State has said that other ways are open. He mentioned the informal approach to the Ministry which may help on some occasions and may indicate to an owner that the building has hidden merits which he did not recognise. This may put him off going to appeal. If he still wants to go to appeal, the Minister of State says that he should submit a bogus application for listed building consent when he wishes to sell the building.
The prospective purchaser might say that he is not taking on a commitment to purchase a listed building which could never be altered and has to stand for ever, and which would involve an expensive repair liability that he would not meet. The owner says: "Would it not be better to get it off the list. I do not see that it has any particular merit". He then submits an application to demolish something which it is not in the mind of the owner to do at all, but it is made in order to get a refusal from the local planning authority, and then to be able to appeal against the refusal. I call that a bogus application. The Minister may have more polite words, but we used "bogus" on Committee without giving offence to anybody. If we are to have this sort of appeal, it would be better to get it done in the way suggested, and above board.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 71, in page 27, line 6, at end insert:
(3) For the purposes of this part of this Act, any object or structure fixed to a building or forming part of the land and comprised within the curtilage of a building shall be treated as part of the building.
This has already been discussed.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I want to ask a question—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): It has already been discussed.

Mr. Skeffington: I referred to it in the debate on Tuesday morning when it was discussed.

Mr. Cooke: Is there any objection if we ask for further elucidation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the Amendment was discussed with a previous Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 72, in page 27, line 12, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
This is the first of a series of drafting Amendments. The others are: 74, 78, 79, 81 to 88, 90 to 92, 96–107, 109 to 111, 166, 168, 170–175, 177–182, 184, 185, 187 to 194, 196 to 204, 206, 208, 229 to 231, 233, 235, 236, 238, 241, and 244 to 247.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 73, in page 27, line 15, at end insert 'and'.
This is a drafting Amendment.

Mr. Allason: I do not agree that it is a drafting Amendment. This is of considerable importance. Under this an owner of a listed building has to go through two hoops, not one, in the event of wanting to demolish the building. In the past the owner of a listed building who wanted to demolish it had to notify the Royal Commission of his intention to demolish, and, I think, the local planning authority. He had to give two months' notice so that the possibility of a building preservation order being served could be considered. Under the 1967 Act this period was extended to six months. Now he not only has to give notice to the Royal Commission, but he also has to get listed building consent from the local planning authority. It was not clear from the drafting that (a) and (b) of Clause 33(3) were complementary. There was not an "or" or an "and" in between them. This puts in an "and" which makes it clear that they are complementary. We welcome that we should have it, but it was a matter which could have caused confusion in view of the previous state of the game before the Amendment was made.

Mr. MacDermot: The purpose of a drafting Amendment is to make clearer the drafting.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that we shall not spend a lot of time on purely drafting Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 74, in page 27, line 20, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 75, in page 27, line 42, after 'executing', insert
'or causing to be executed any'—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order. I am not clear whether, by the Parliamentary Secretary reading out a whole list of Amendments, rather like a Bingo caller, we have passed all those Amendments before we have reached them. He read them out. I do not know whether he is saying that we were discussing them with each other or whether, when somebody said "Aye" after that, we passed Amendments to the end of the Bill before ever getting to them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: They have all been discussed, so no further debate on them is possible.

Amendment made: No. 245, in page 27, line 42, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 77, in page 28, line 32, at end insert—
(8) Before giving a direction under subsection (7) above in relation to a building, the Minister shall consult with the local planning authority and with the owner and the occupier of the building.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 76, in page 28, line 27, after 'direct', insert
'after consultation with the local planning authority, the owner and the occupier'.

Mr. Skeffington: Clause 33(9) empowers the Minister to direct that a building formerly subject to a building preservation order and for that reason deemed to be a listed building shall no longer be deemed to be listed.
In Committee the Opposition moved an Amendment which would require the Minister, before making such a direction, to consult with the local planning authority, the owner and the occupier. I gave an undertaking that this should be considered. The Amendment fulfils that pledge.

Mr. Allason: There is little difference between this Amendment and our alternative. We would provide that the Minister may direct after consultation, while the Government have it that, before giving a direction, he shall consult. Our main objection is that the Government Amendment gives a second subsection (8), and also refers to a direction under subsection (7), when I think that subsection (9) is intended, since no direction is possible under (7). Amendment 77 is therefore defective, and Amendment 76 is to be preferred.

Mr. Skeffington: I should have said that the figures in the first line of the Government Amendment have been wrongly printed, and that (8) should be (10) and (7) should be (9). This has been mentioned, but I should like to put it formally on the record.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Amendment is proposed as on the Order Paper, with the exception that, in the first line "(8)" should read "(10)" and "(7)" should read "(9)".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO S. 33

Amendments made: No. 78, in page 29, line 12, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 79, in page 29, line 20, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'. —[Mr. Skeffington.]

Amendment proposed: No. 80, in page 29, line 34 at end insert—
(c) the reconstruction of the building or any part of it following the execution of any works with the use of original materials so far as practicable and with such alterations of the interior of the building as may be specified in the conditions.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Mr. Robert Cooke: I do not know whether I should rise to a point of order, since I had hoped for some elucidation

of this Amendment. But if the explanation is satisfactory, I shall not be able to speak again, and I can only hope that one of my hon. Friends will take up the point—

Mr. Murton: I will.

Mr. Cooke: My hon. Friend, luckily, says that he will do so.
The object of the Amendment is that original materials shall be used in the alteration or extension of a building. This is a worthy object: if a building is to be damaged by alteration, it is clearly preferable that as little damage as possible should be done.
However, taking this new subsection (c) with (a) and (b), we can see that a little more explanation is required. Subsection (a) refers to
the preservation of particular features of the building, either as part of it or after severance therefrom;
Do the Government take that to mean that, if the alteration or extension is authorised and involves the severance therefrom of particular features, this part of the Clause would seek to preserve those severed features, or would it also protect parts of a building which were dismantled long ago but are still lying on the site? I cannot see how such features can be protected unless they are covered by this subsection.
Part of a great complex of buildings might have been demolished or have fallen down a century before and be lying on the site—carved stonework for instance. One recalls the fireplace at Tattershall Castle, which Lord Curzon helped to preserve.
3.0 a.m.
At my own home, I have had great difficulty in preserving parts of the building which were demolished a century ago. Some person thought he had a right over them and so wanted to cart away stones from the site. Ten years ago I tried to enlist the support of the Ministry in this, and it said that there was nothing in law that could be done, and I had to do a deal with the man to stop him from taking the stones away from the site.
I hope that Clause 34(l)(a) and (b), and now (c), will result in the proper protection for parts of buildings which are dismantled as a result of the authorisation contained in the Clause or were dismantled years ago. I hope I am right in


thinking that there is some protection here. If there is not, perhaps the Government would give an undertaking to look at this in another place, because this is a very important matter.

Mr. Skeffington: Perhaps I may explain the circumstances of this Amendment. In Standing Committee there was a proposition which would have ruled out the service of a listed building purchase notice where listed building consent is granted subject to a condition that the building should be rebuilt in its existing form. This seemed to be an interesting possibility of retaining, at any rate in outline, a desirable feature of a complex of buildings, and I undertook to consider the proposal. On reflection, we thought it would not be appropriate to exclude the service of a purchase notice in every case where replica rebuilding is permitted, since in some circumstances there might be no reasonably beneficial use even for a replica.
It is desirable, however, that, in granting either listed building consent or planning permission, the planning authority should be able to impose a condition requiring replica rebuilding. Therefore, the Amendment adds this type of condition to the list, to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention, in Clause 34(4) of the conditions which may be imposed on grants of planning permission, and by Clause 34(5) on grants of listed building consent. Appeals may be made against the imposition of this type of condition, as against any other.
Whether this would cover the case of remnants of previous activities I would like to consider further, and I will get in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am grateful for the undertaking which the hon. Gentleman has given, but would he explain to the House whether it is possible under this procedure for a condition to be that parts of the building, which may be of historic interest, and which could be reinstated, should be used for re-erection on the same site? Or has it to be on some other site? Suppose a fine doorway. Can it be carted away and put up somewhere else?

Mr. Skeffington: That is so. This, of course, refers to the applicability to the site.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 81, in page 29, line 35, leave out 'Section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 82, in line 39, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 83, in line 43, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 35.

PURCHASE NOTICE ON REFUSAL OR CONDITIONAL GRANT OF SECTION 33 CONSENT.

Amendments made: No. 84, in page 30, line 2, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 85, in line 14, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 86, line 23, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 87, in line 25, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 88, in line 40, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 89, in page 30, line 41, at the end to insert:
'other than works for which the local planning authority or the Minister have undertaken to grant such consent'.
This fulfils an undertaking which was given in Committee to correct an apparent anomaly in the drafting of Clause 35. A case might arise, on consideration of a listed building purchase notice, where the local planning authority or the Ministers had not given listed building consent but had undertaken to give it. By Clause 35(l)(c) that undertaking could be taken into account by the Minister when he considered whether the land could be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use, but by the last two lines of Clause 35(4) the works concerned might have to be disregarded. The Amendment makes sure, as I undertook to do, that subsection (l)(c) is right, by excluding, from the works which are to be disregarded, any works in respect of which an undertaking to grant consent has been given.

Mr. Allason: I am not sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether we are allowed to discuss the Opposition Amendment to the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that there is no objection to that Amendment being discussed.

Mr. Allason: It would add at the end of line 2:
'where the application has been made by the owner'.
As the Parliamentary Secretary said, we are discussing the situation where a listed building consent has been refused and where a listed building is useless to the owner without that consent. Perhaps he makes a claim and the local authority resists the purchase notice and it cannot then be claimed by the local authority that other works, such as a new development or a change requiring a listed building consent, can make the building viable. The reason is obvious; that the owner should not be compelled to carry out other works which he does not desire to do.
The Government Amendment makes an exception to this, in that the local planning authority can avoid a purchase notice by claiming as an exception that the building could be made viable by works where consent has been given on an undertaking. If the owner has applied or intends to apply for this consent to save his ownership, that is fine. But we must remember that the application for planning consent is not confined to the owner. Any other person can apply for consent. It would, theoretically, be possible, although the owner does not wish to apply for listed building consent to substantially change his building, possibly to another use, for someone else to apply and for the Minister to undertake to grant that consent, so depriving the owner of his right to compensation. I am sure that this is not the Government's intention and the position would be made clear if the Amendment to the Amendment were accepted.

Mr. Skeffington: The Amendment to the Amendment would restrict the right of the Minister to direct the grant of listed building consent when considering a listed building purchase notice by making the grant subject to the agreement of the owner. This is not acceptable to the Government. As we explained when this matter was under discussion in Committee, if a local authority is to be com-

pelled to take over what may, in certain circumstances, be regarded as a white elephant, so to speak, it is proper that, if the authority feels that there is some reasonable beneficial use for part of the property, there should be no reason why the Minister should not be entitled either to grant the necessary consent or make conditions which would make that possible.
If the relevant land is capable of reasonable beneficial use by the granting of consent, it should be open to the Minister and the local planning authority to grant such consent without the agreement of the owner. In any event, it should not make any difference to the owner since, if the undertaking is given to him or to a third party, he, the owner, can still have the benefit of it. Thus, it would be wrong to say that this must be done only with the agreement of the owner. There must be some rights for the local authority in this matter, even if one considers the obligations which the authority is taking over.

Mr. Graham Page: We are talking about the circumstances in which an owner has been refused consent. Take the example in which the owner has a small Elizabethan cottage to which he wants to make alterations. He applies for a listed building consent and it is given, but the cottage is falling down and he serves a purchase notice. Then the Minister says, "You could build a Buckingham Palace on this site. We will give the permission." The owner may not be able to afford to make the alterations which the permission grants. It must be a permission with the owner's consent. Otherwise the Minister could give an outrageous permission and defeat the purchase notice because the owner might not have the means to carry out the permission given by the Minister. It is a ridiculous position if that is so. I may have misunderstood, but this is apparently what the Parliamentary Secretary said.

Mr. Allason: This—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak on this Amendment.

Mr. Allason: Do we move the Amendment to the Amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Amendment to the Amendment has not been selected to be moved.

Clause 36.

COMPENSATION FOR REFUSAL OF CONSENT TO ALTERATIONS ETC.

Amendments made: No. 90, in page 31, line 2, leave out 'section 33' and insert ' listed building'.

No. 91, in page 31, line 14, leave out 'section 33 ' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 92, in page 31, line 25, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 31.

Division No. 161.]
AYES
[3.14 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Murray, Albert


Archer, Peter
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Newens, Stan


Armstrong, Ernest
Forrester, John
Ogden, Eric


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Freeson, Reginald
O'Malley, Brian


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Garrett, W. E.
Orbach, Maurice


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gourlay, Harry
Orme, Stanley


Beaney, Alan
Gregory, Arnold
Oswald, Thomas


Bence, Cyril
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hamling, William
Palmer, Arthur


Blackburn, F.
Hannan, William
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harper, Joseph
Pavitt, Laurence


Booth, Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Haseldine, Norman
Pentland, Norman


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hazell, Bert
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Heffer, Eric S.
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Homer, John
Reynolds, G. W.


Brown,Bob(Nc'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hoy, James
Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow.E.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Rose, Paul


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Chapman, Donald
Janner, Sir Barnett
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Coe, Denis
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Coleman, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Skeffington, Arthur


Datyell, Tam
Lee, John (Reading)
Slater, Joseph


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Small, William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dempsey, James
McBride, Neil
Taverne, Dick


Dewar, Donald
MacColl, James
Tinrt, James


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
MacDermot, Niall
Urwin, T. W.


Dickens, James
Macdonald, A. H.
Varloy, Eric G.


Doig, Peter
McGuire, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunnett, Jack
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mackintosh, John P.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wallace, George


Eadie, Alex
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wellbeloved, James


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Marks, Kenneth
Whitaker, Ben


Ellis, John
Marquand, David
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchln)


English, Michael
Mendelson, J. J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Ennals, David
Millan, Bruce
Woof, Robert


Evans, Iroan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Moyle, Roland
Mr. Charles Grey.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Higgins, Terence L.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Hordern, Peter
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whit by")


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Silvester, Frederick


Clegg, Walter
Lubbock, Eric
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Cooke, Robert
MacArthur, Ian
Temple, John M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Murton, Oscar



Eden, Sir John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Peyton, John
Mr.Reginald Eyre and


Goodhew, Victor
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Grant, Anthony
Quennell, Miss J. M.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment is No. 94, with which we may discuss Amendment No. 93, in page 31, line 32, leave out 'is' and insert 'has been'.
No. 95, in page 31, line 33, at end insert:
'except when action has been taken upon that purchase notice of such a nature that compensation is not payable under the aforementioned sections'.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 94, in page 31, line 33, at end insert:
'being a purchase notice which takes effect'.
It was pointed out in Committee that the Clause is defective. The intention of subsection (4) is to exclude compensation under the Clause, for the refusal of consent to alterations, when compensation is also payable as a result of a purchase notice. However, as drafted, the subsection would exclude compensation under the Clause whenever a purchase notice is served, regardless of whether or not it takes effect. The Amendment restricts the operation of the subsection to the case originally intended.

Mr. Graham Page: We are grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the Amendment, and gratified that we can assist in making the Bill intelligible.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 37

NOTICE TO ENFORCE S. 33 CONTROL

Amendments made: No. 96, in page 32, line 4, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 97, in page 32, line 6, at end insert:
(2) A notice under this section is hereafter in this Act referred to as a 'listed building enforcement notice'.

No. 98, in page 32, line 8, leave out 'notices under this section' and insert 'listed building enforcement notices'.— [Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 38

PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE UNDER S. 37

Amendments made: No. 99, in page 32, line 11, leave out 'notice under section 37 above' and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.

No. 100, in page 33, line 2, leave out 'notice under section 37 above' and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 39

EXECUTION AND COST OF WORKS REQUIRED UNDER ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE

Amendments made: No. 101, in page 33, line 7, leave out from beginning to 'any' and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.

No. 102, in page 33, line 13, leave out from 'a' to 'and' in line 14 and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.

No. 103, in page 33, line 23, leave out from 'a' to 'as' and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 40

ENFORCEMENT BY, OR BY DIRECTION OF, THE MINISTER

Amendments made: No. 104, in page 33, line 29, leave out from 'a' to 'should' in line 30 and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.

No. 105, in page 33, line 35 leave out from 'a' to 'served' and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 42

COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY SERVICE OF BUILDING PRESERVATION NOTICE.

Amendments made: No. 106, in page 35, line 13, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 107, in page 35, line 25, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'. —[Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 44

REPAIRS NOTICE AS PRELIMINARY TO COMPULSORY ACQUISITION.

Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment 108, in page 37, line 29, at end insert:
(5) A person on whom a repairs notice is served, or any other person having an interest in the land, may within twenty-eight days from the service of the notice appeal to the Minister against the notice on any of the following grounds—

(a) that the building was not of special or historic interest; or


(b) that the works are unsuitable or un necessary to the character of the building; or
(c) that the works required are the responsibility of some other person; or
(d)that the cost of the works is disproportionate to the value of the building; or
(e) that the cost of the works is more than the person served with the notice can reasonably afford. 

(6) An appeal under this section shall be made by notice in writing to the Minister which shall indicate the grounds of the appeal; and on any such appeal the Minister shall give the appellant and the local planning authority an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for that purpose.
(7) On the determination of an appeal under this section the Minister may quash the repairs notice or confirm it.
The Amendment attempts to provide for an appeal against a repairs notice. Under the Bill a repairs notice is described as a preliminary to a compulsory purchase order, but it is definitely preliminary. Where a local planning authority considers that a listed building is in bad repair it can serve a repairs notice on the owner requiring him to carry out the necessary repairs or they will issue a compulsory purchase order.
I think that the Government are assuming that every repairs notice will be resisted, that there will not be any attempt to comply with it, and that it is just a pure preliminary. The way they behaved on the last Amendment is indicative that the Government do not understand about listed buildings and buildings of historic interest. People are very fond of them and want to preserve them. They may be rather ruinous.
I have a little cottage in my constituency which was the bakehouse of the village. Under the last Amendment, I might be forced to turn it back to a bakehouse. But if I were served with a repairs notice saying that the bakehouse was in poor condition—it is several hundred years old—I would have the choice of complying with the notice or seeking to object to it on the ground that it was unnecessary to keep the bakehouse in good condition when the rest of the cottage was in perfectly good order and presented a good appearance.
But there is to be no appeal at that stage. The only opportunity for appeal arises when we get to the stage of a compulsory purchase order. I do not see why the owner should be put to the

mental distress of going as far as a compulsory purchase order and then having to resist it to obtain an appeal against the repairs notice. In most cases, the owner, on receiving a repairs notice, will say, "Can I afford to do this job?" and probably getting estimates, finding that the job would be very expensive and then deciding whether the job is really necessary. At this stage, there should be an appeals procedure to see whether the repairs notice is reasonable.
I know that the Minister does not want more and more appeals. Nevertheless, we want justice for the individual. Individuals' rights are constantly being overridden by this Government. This is a chance to give an opportunity for an appeal procedure at the right time and not to have to wait until a further step has been taken which most owners would wish to avoid.

Mr. MacDermot: As was explained in Committee, the repairs notice procedure is nothing more than what I described as a warning shot across the bows. If the owner of a listed building allows it to fall into disrepair in a way which threatens its continued existence, one of the remedies for the local authority is to acquire the building. We thought it right that, before it was able to launch compulsory purchase proceedings, it should give fair warning by specifying what it considered were the repairs which should be done and giving that notice to the owner. That is all it is, and nothing more.
We do not want an elaboration of appeals systems upon appeals systems. If and when the owner ignores that warning notice and the local authority proceeds to compulsory purchase, there are written into that stage all the rights of appeal which can be requested. He can appeal against the listing. He can appeal on the ground that the repairs he is being asked to do are unnecessary and excessive. But it would overload the whole system to have a separate system of appeals merely against this warning notice. Long before one reached this formal warning notice, one would have had discussions between the local authority and the owner, and one would get to this stage only if the person adamantly refused to repair. Some people refuse to repair in the hope that the building will fall to pieces and thus


they will be able to pull it down and get the real development value of the building.
I agreed to look at one point raised in Committee, namely, the suggestion that there might be difficulty in a case in which the person with the repairing liability as between owner and tenant was the tenant. I see no point in looking at it; it is not being pressed. The repairs notice is a preliminary to acquisition, and, since it is the owner who suffers if the building is acquired, he is the one who should receive the warning. The relationship between the owner and the tenant is a legal matter. The owner can protect himself, and in an ordinary tenancy agreement he does so. It is up to him to retain sufficient control by a normal tenancy agreement to enable him to safeguard his rights.

3.30 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: This is inconsiderate to the owner of the property. Here is a person who owns a listed property. The local authority thinks that it is in disrepair; the owner may not think it is in disrepair, and there may be a dispute about it. Normally when a local authority serves a person with a sanitary notice or a dangerous structure notice he has the right to defend himself against it. That is merely defending oneself before the magistrates. Here there is no appeal against the first notice. It is followed by what we call a compulsory purchase order, which is an order to take a person's property away from him. This can be justified in the Bill merely by serving a notice on the person that the listed building is in disrepair.
This is very inconsiderate and may cause grievous hardship. Many of us in our constituencies have seen terror strike into the hearts of owners when they have received compulsory purchase orders. We call them that because we are dealing with them every day, and they are not compulsory purchase orders on our own homes, but when a constituent comes to us with a compulsory purchase order on his home, we know how terrified he is.
Surely we do not have to go to that procedure immediately from a repairs notice. A form of appeal from the repairs notice could relieve the. owner of that sort of terror.

Mr. Lubbock: Would the hon. Gentleman consider that, instead of appealing to the Minister and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite implied, over-burdening the machinery, it might be a suitable case for appeal under Clause 19 of the Bill where, instead of the appeal going to the Minister direct, it goes to a person appointed by the Minister for that purpose?

Mr. Graham Page: That is a very sound suggestion. All I want to do is to put something in between the service of the notice and the service of the compulsory purchase order, so that there can be arbitration between the parties on the repairs notice.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 45.

COMPENSATION ON COMPULSORY ACQUISITION.

Amendments made: No. 109, in page 37, line 43, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 110, in page 38, line 37, leave out ' section 33 ' and insert ' listed building '. —[Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 47.

APPLICATION OF CONTROL TO LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES.

Amendment made: No. Ill, in page 39, line 29, leave out ' section 33 ' and insert ' listed building '.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 51

REFERENCES TO A PLANNING INQUIRY COMMISSION

Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 112, in page 42, line 3, at end insert:
'but the Commission shall not in any case be debarred from considering any alternative site'.
The Amendment concerns the Planning Inquiry Commission carrying out an inquiry into a proposed development. It is clear from the wording of the Clause that the Minister may refer to the Commission the question of an alternative site, but the fact that the Minister may cause them to look into the question of an alternative site brings into doubt whether they have the right to do it themselves.
We were told in Committee that this was the intention, but it is difficult to read it into the present wording, and it would be better if it were made quite clear. The planning inquiries commissions will be watched with great interest by laymen, who will study their terms of reference and want to know what are their rights and restrictions. The Amendment would have the effect of clearing people's minds of doubt.

Mr. MacDermot: In its strict wording and narrow sense, the Amendment is unnecessary. In any event, the hon. Gentleman's Amendment would not achieve what he intends, and I would oppose one which did.
A Planning Inquiry Commission will operate in two stages. In the first stage, it will itself carry out an investigation into the issues referred to it and what appear to it to be the relevant issues. That is provided for in subsection (6)(a). It will also hear objections, and that will usually be in the form of a local inquiry, under subsection (6)(b).
Inevitably, where an applicant bases his case in whole or in part on the suitability of a given site and says either that no other site is suitable or that any other site would, for example, be far more expensive, objectors are likely to suggest alternative sites. Once such an issue is raised, the Commission is bound to consider it. If it refrains from dealing with it in its report, there will be possible grounds for quashing the decision because the relevant issues have not been considered. In conducting its proceedings, the Commission will have a general power to consider any alternative sites suggested in those proceedings.
At the other end is the case where, at the time the Minister refers the matter to the Planning Inquiry Commission, he says that he wants it to investigate the possibility of alternative sites. When so charged, it will be for the Commission to investigate whether other sites are equally or more suitable. But we do not think that it is right that the Commission should go beyond what it is charged with doing, namely, considering the suitability of the subject of the application, and of its own initiative investigating alternative sites if that has not been referred to it by the Minister and raised as an issue in the proceedings.
When the possibility of alternative sites is included in the reference by the Minister, the Commission must investigate that. If any issue of alternative sites is raised in the proceedings, it has to consider that and, as part of its consideration, may initiate further investigations of its own. But it is not for the Commission itself to go searching round trying to consider whether other sites for which no application has been made would be equally or more suitable.
Against that background, the Amendment is unnecessary. The Commission would not be debarred from considering an alternative site by the nature of the work that it has to do, and there would be no need to write in wording of the kind suggested.
Consideration of this Amendment has made me look again at subsection (6), and I think it probably would be helpful if at a later stage of the proceedings on the Bill we were to add after the word "identify" at the beginning of subsection (6)(a) the words "and investigate". This brings out more clearly the difference between the two parts of their work, firstly, where they themselves are investigating, and secondly, where they are considering objections. They would only consider alternative sites in the first part if required to do so by the Minister, and in the second part where the issue was raised.

Mr. Allason: The Minister of State has taken exactly the same point I was about to take, which is the first stage of their considerations. I am not certain that the words "and investigate" would do the trick. Supposing they are set to investigate the possibility of the development of Luton Airport. In their first investigations they would refer to identifying and even investigating the desirability of expanding the airport. But at that stage it would not enter their minds, unless the Minister had directed them to consider that there was a need for very considerable expansion of air traffic in that area, that there was the possibility of going elsewhere.
I think it would be very much better if they were free at the first stage, when they identify and investigate, to consider alternative sites rather than wait for the inquiry when somebody gets up and says "We do not want it here—why don't you


look at Silverstone?" There is then suddenly the possibility of an alternative site, and the alternative site may turn out to be not Silverstone but somewhere else.
I think it is desirable to make absolutely clear that they can consider alternative sites. The Minister says they can, and I am sure it is better to write it into the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 113, in page 42, line 29, at end insert:
(7) Any such commission may, with theapproval of the Minister and at his expense, arrange for the carrying out (whether by the commission themselves or by others) of research of any kind appearing to them to be relevant to a matter referred to them for inquiry and report.
In this subsection ' the Minister' in relation to any matter affecting both England and Wales, means the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the Secretary of State acting in either case, by arrangments between the two of them, on behalf of both.
The purpose of this Amendment is to equip the Planning Inquiry Commission with power to arrange for the carrying out of research which is relevant to a matter which has been referred to them. It is intended, of course, that these Commissions should be able to investigate in depth matters which are relevant to a decision on planning grounds. This may involve novel technical or scientific considerations and matters which may extend beyond their own expertise.
For the purpose of their investigations, therefore, these kinds of studies or researches may be necessary and they ought to have power to commission them. They will need the consent of the Minister to get approval for the cost involved, and also to make sure that there is no unnecessary duplication by outside private research work of what may already be available from research establishments within the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 114, in page 42, line 35, leave out subsection (8) and insert:
(8) Schedule (Construction of references in sections 51 and 52 to 'the responsible Minister or Ministers') to this Act shall have effect for the construction of references in this section and section 52 below to ' the responsible Minister or Ministers'.

This Amendment replaces sub-section (8) of Clause 51 of the Bill by a new sub-section introducing this Schedule, and we hope that the table form of this Schedule will be easier for reference purposes to people who have to use it than trying to plough their way through some rather lengthy provisions as in the Bill. There is only one change of substance— one novel matter—in the new Schedule. This is the entries at l(a) in the Table relating to the position of operational land of statutory undertakers.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Allason: I warmly welcome the tabulation. It makes the matter much clearer. But it could have been even clearer. The fourth column is redundant because it only adds up columns 2 and 3. Column 2 is headed "Affecting England" and column 3 is headed "Affecting Wales". Where a matter affects England and Wales all one needs to do is add up columns 2 and 3 to get the answer.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 52.

PROCEDURE ON A REFERENCE TO A PLANNING INQUIRY COMMISSION.

Amendment made: No. 115, in page 43, line 22, leave out 'take place' and insert ' be carried out'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, Amendment No. 116, in page 43, line 35, to leave out subsection (3) and to insert—
(3) A Planning Inquiry Commission shall, for the purpose of complying with section 51(6)(b) above, hold a local inquiry and they may hold such an inquiry, if they think it necessary for the proper discharge of their functions, notwithstanding that neither the applicant nor the local planning authority desire an opportunity of appearing and being heard.
This Amendment discharges two undertakings given in Committee— firstly, to make it clear that any inquiry held by a planning inquiry commission under Clause 5l(6)(b) should be a local inquiry and not a hearing; and, secondly, to empower the commission to hold a local inquiry even when none of the statutory parties entitled to demand that one do so.

Mr. Allason: I have two questions which arise from the drafting. First, must a local inquiry be held by a member of a planning inquiry commission? Secondly, can the local inquiry only be held within the restrictions of Clause 51(6)(b), which is limited if, as stated here, neither the applicant nor the local planning authority desire to appear to some person having made representations? Is it the case that another person cannot bo heard in cases where a Government Department proposes to make a direction for development by a local authority or statutory undertaker or, alternatively, where it proposes itself to develop?
It would seem that, if these cases are excluded from the local inquiry in cases where neither the applicant nor the local planning authority desire an appeal, there is an unnecessary restriction here, because it may well be that, in the circumstances of the two latter cases, some outside body would have good reason for asking for an inquiry. It would appear from the wording that it would not be entitled to get it.

Mr. MacDermot: The answer to the first question is, "Yes". The inquiry will be heard by a member of a commission.
The hon. Gentleman's second question was a little complicated, and I am not sure if I got it absolutely clear. Perhaps I can answer in this way: There will only be a right to demand an inquiry in cases in which at the moment, there would be a right to a local inquiry if the planning application or appeal had not been referred to a planning inquiry commission.
There will be the same right to inquiry but no more. As a result of the Amendment there will be the additional power of making representations before a third party, to make representations to the Planning Inquiry Commission, which would have the power, on its own initiative, to hold an inquiry, even though none of the people statutorily entitled to demand one had done so.

Mr. Allason: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not quite taken my point. Under Clause 51(6)(b) it is confined to the cases in Clause 5l(1)(a)(b), while (c) and (d) are expressly excluded by the

terms of subsection (6)(b). In those circumstances it would appear that the third party is excluded.

Mr. MacDermot: The third party is excluded, even if the matter is not referred to the Planning Inquiry Commission. The right to demand an inquiry is co-extensive with the present right under existing planning law. What we are doing in the Amendment is vesting power in the Commission to hold an inquiry. This opens a door to third parties, or there is a possibility of the door being opened for them by the Commission.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 117, in page 43, line 40 leave out' if it had been ' and insert ' one '.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Clause 53.

DELEGATION OF PLANNING FUNCTIONS TO OFFICERS OF LOCAL UTHORITIES.

Mr. Murton: I beg to move Amendment No. 118, in page 44, line 11, after ' authority ', insert:
'(who is to their satisfaction competent to undertake the responsibility of examining, investigating and making decisions upon applications for planning permissions and related applications)'.
As the Bill is drafted, a local planning authority may delegate any of its officers, with or without restrictions or conditions. We consider that the words "any officer" are too wide in scope. A situation might arise when a chief planning officer in an overburdened office might delegate functions to a junior in times of crisis. Generally speaking, the matters dealt with in Clause 53 would be fairly minor. Subsection (f) however deals with:
an application for consent under section 33 of this Act for the execution of works for the demolition of a listed building or for its alteration or extension.
Such work requires skill and expertise, and for that reason we suggest that the Amendment is accepted, so that a local authority must be satisfied beyond per-adventure of the competence and qualifications of the officer it is choosing to carry out any function.

Mr. MacDermot: This Amendment is unnecessary. The hon. Member suggested that there was a danger of a chief planning officer, to whom powers of delegation had been given, deciding to delegate to a junior officer. He would have no power to do so. It is only the authority which can exercise the powers of delegation. In the phrase known to lawyers:
Delegatus non potest delegare.
The officer would have no power to re-delegate to someone else.

Mr. Murton: Can we dispose of that and say that the authority did the delegating? How are we placed then?

Mr. MacDermot: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that he thinks that a local planning authority, given power under this Bill to delegate, and having to decide to whom it will delegate, will not consider the kind of matters in his Amendment? I would have thought it was almost an insult to the authority to suggest that they did not realise that of course they must delegate to someone competent to undertake the powers of delegation. But perhaps I can indicate that when we come to Amendment 120, which was on a point we were asked in Committee to consider, that delegation should be to officers by name, I shall be disposed to recommend the House to accept it.
If this is done and local authorities have therefore to decide by name on the particular people to whom they are going to delegate, they will exercise that power responsibly and it is not necessary to write this into the Bill. If we wanted to do this, the drafting would not be very suitable.

Mr. Graham Page: The point about this Amendment, which I think the Minister of State has missed, is that it concerns the capability of the officer appointed to undertake the responsibility of making decisions of this type. He will have, to some extent, to carry out an investigation of plans and reach a decision. There may be fully qualified planning officers, architects or surveyors in a department who are not the right people to carry out this sort of investigation of a plan, perhaps beyond the submission of an application, and to be satisfied that the application is right for the district.
The Amendment is intended to stress that and not just professional qualifications. It may be that the Minister has it in mind to advise local authorities on these lines, perhaps by the well-worn method of a circular. If he intends to give guidance of this kind, I hope he will bear this sort of consideration in mind.

Mr. MacDermot: We will bear that in mind and consider it carefully. I took the sense of the Amendment although I think it is not a matter we think should be written into the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Murton: I beg to move Amendment No. 119, in page 44, line 38, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
(3) The delegation of the function aforesaid to an officer shall be made to him by name.
with which it would be convenient to take Amendment 120, in page 44, line 38, leave out from ' section' to end of line 40 and insert:
' shall be made to him by name'.

Mr. MacDermot: There seem to be two Amendments dealing with the matter. It appears to us that the wording of the second is rather to be preferred.

Mr. Murton: If I could just speak to Amendment 120, the Minister of State said on the previous Amendment that he would be disposed to accept this. We had considerable discussion in Committee and we are anxious that anybody appointed should be named rather than being described by function. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 120, in page 44, line 38, leave out from ' section' to end of line 40 and insert:
'shall be made to him by name'.—[Mr. Murton.]

Clause 54.

LIMIT OF DURATION OF PLANNING PERMISSIONS PAST AND FUTURE.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment 124, in page 45, line 32, leave out ' five' and insert 'ten'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it would be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 125, in page 45, line 38, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.

Amendment No. 128, in page 46, line 31, leave out 'two' and insert 'five'.

Amendment No. 129, in page 46, line 36, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.

Amendment No. 130, in page 46, line 38, leave out 'three ' and insert 'five'.

Amendment No. 131, in page 47, line 5, leave out 'two' and insert 'five'.

Amendment No. 132, in page 47, line 10, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.

Amendment No. 133, in page 47, line 12, leave out 'three' and insert 'five'.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Rossi: Clauses 54 and 55 place arbitrary time limits on the lives of various planning permissions. The object of this group of Amendments is to extend those time limits.
Under Clause 54 a time limit of five years is put on all existing planning permissions where development has not been started before the publication of the Bill on 20th December, 1967. The same time limit of five years is being put on all future planning permissions, except that local authorities can vary it. The Amendments seek to extend the period of five years to ten years in all cases.
Linked with these proposals are the time limits contained in Clause 55 relating to outline planning permissions. For existing outline planning permission, where a development has not been started before 20th December, 1967, any detailed approval which is required must be sought within two years of the Clause coming into force, and the development must begin either within five years of the Clause coming into force or within three years of detailed approval being finally given to the matters for which permission has been sought. We seek to extend these periods to five years.
During the debate in Standing Committee the Minister gave two reasons why he felt it necessary that a time limit should be placed on the lives of planning permissions. The first reason was administrative convenience. It was found that, with local planning authorities, unused planning permissions were cluttering up the files, and it was desirable that these should be brought to an end if they were not to be used.
The second, and perhaps the far more important, reason was that he felt that land might be hoarded by speculators. He felt that by putting time limits on their planning permissions they would be compelled either to carry out their development or sell off the land.
Because we recognise that there is merit in the administrative convenience point, we consider that time limits should remain, but that they should be considerably extended. This is what we seek to do in this group of Amendments.
We do not accept the validity of the Minister's contention in Standing Committee that builders and developers are hoarding land. The experience of the Land Commission, which has been raking round the country trying to find hoarded land, is that it does not exist. This has been a matter of public statement. It has also been a great disappointment to the Land Commission that one of the bases upon which it was created was found to be completely false. Hoarding has not been taking place. It is true that builders have been compiling stocks of land, in the sense that they have to collect together parcels to develop them as a unified whole; but this is something that the Land Commission itself would expect to do.
I seems quite wrong that, by forcing arbitrary time limits of this kind— relatively short time limits—a builder or developer should be required to carry out his development out of time scale. This could easily ruin a comprehensive development of land in any particular case, and hardship could arise. The builder often buys land with an existing planning permission, whether detailed or outline. Under the Government's proposals, it is possible, for reasons beyond his control, that he might find, after having bought that land, that there were difficulties of access or delays in providing services like sewerage and that the time limit had run out. He would then be left with land for which he had paid a price reflecting the betterment levy but which no longer had that value.
It would clearly be unfair to cancel the planning permission when that price had been paid and the Land Commission had collected its 40 per cent. If the builder sold his land, he would do so at a considerable loss, whereas the Land


Commission would have got the betterment levy once and possibly twice if someone else applied for a fresh planning permission for a different type of development.
If the Minister's object is to prevent the hoarding of land, the Land Commission is his avowed instrument, charged to seek out land which is being hoarded. I remember great speeches by the Parliamentary Secretary on this subject in debates on the Land Commission Bill—

Mr. MacDermot: Does the hon. Gentleman want to keep it?

Mr. Rossi: No, this is a Government programme, not mine. I am simply asking why, having one instrument which was to do these wonderful things, they now produce another which will create many difficulties for people trying to carry out proper and necessary developments.

Mr. MacDermot: The Amendments propose merely to increase the standard time limits in Clauses 54 and 55, which I described in Committee as a "norm" for planning authorities, a guide to the normal period, but there is complete flexibility, and in any case it will be open to them to grant either a longer or a shorter period. That applies not only to the standard limit for a full planning permission but also to the period between grant of outline permission and the submission of the application for full permission.
The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) suggested that our case for this limit was based on administrative convenience. Nothing of the sort. These unused planning permissions are clogging up the planning machine, in the sense that planning authorities are not able to deal as they should with new planning applications because they do not know how many of the old planning permissions are real, subsisting permissions which are ever likely to be exercised, and how many of them were obtained for other purposes to increase land values at the time of the sale. Instances were given of this in Committee. I think it is a problem which particularly applies in coastal areas and in certain other areas of high amenity value.

Mr. Lubbock: Is not one of the consequences of the shortness of this period going to be that people who have not been able to build in five years will immediately apply for planning permission again for another five years and so increase the number of applications with which the local authorities have to deal?

Mr. MacDermot: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman assumes they. will get planning permission again. They may or they may not, and it depends.
This leads me to the point which the hon. Gentleman was making about the builders. We are, of course, well aware that some builders require at times to stock land for many years ahead. We quite accepted that, and made it perfectly plain that this is the sort of case where we perceive that it will be reasonable for a planning authority to grant a longer period of planning permission, but I do not accept the suggestion that there is no evidence of any land hoarding.
Of course, it all depends on what we mean by "hoarding". I think it is clear that there is not a lot of land with planning permission for development other than in small plots where the owners are not prepared to release that land to builders, but I think there is a considerable amount of land in the hands of builders, both large and small, some of whom have stocks of land far beyond anything which will be needed for just the next, say, five or six years. It does not follow that when land is in the hands of a builder it will necessarily be brought forward for development at the time which is the right time from a planning point of view, and this, again, is one of the reasons why it is wise for planning authorities to impose proper time limits for planning permission. Many have adopted this practice for some considerable time past. What is new now is the universality of this practice.
We accept that there may be arguments for particular cases, be they by builders or be they by private individuals. There may equally be a case where a limit is properly imposed for a certain number of years, but then new circumstances intervene which make it not possible to develop in that time. If


they require a renewal of planning permission and it is obvious that they intend to develop, then that is the kind of circumstance in which they would get fresh planning permission. This does not indefinitely affect their position.
They are not going to pay a fresh development levy on renewal of planning permission.
I found the argument based on the powers of purchase of the Land Commission splendid coming from hon. Members opposite when they keep trying to threaten everybody with their intention to abolish the Land Commission even when they may never be in a position to do so. I am quite certain that if the time comes—many years ahead—when they do get into office again, they will find the functions and the usefulness of the Land Commission will have proved themselves to the builders, and will have proved themselves to the planning authorities, above all in this role of seeing that land is brought forward for development at the time and in a way which will be of benefit to the planning authorities and the builders.

4.15 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: In another place and at another time I shall be delighted to debate: the Land Commission with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Perhaps our chance will come on a later Amendment at an even later hour. Meanwhile, we are dealing with the important subject of the limitation of the duration of planning permissions.
The first difficulty is that the Bill imposes an automatic duration; a statutory condition which applies to a planning permission if the local authority does nothing to remove that condition. This means that if the local authority makes no alteration in the five years, there will be no appeal by the applicant to the Minister to ask for that five years to be varied. I understand that only if the local planning authority imposes some other period than the five years will the applicant be entitled to approach the Minister in this matter.
There may be many cases where the five-year period, or any statutory time, is wrong, yet the applicant will have to abide by the local authority's decision, without appeal. One should, therefore,

give the longest reasonable period, and we have doubled the five years to 10 in the Amendment, which should normally cover the position.
The second difficulty is the question of bringing stocks of land forward. By limiting planning permission, will this really bring land forward for development? After all, it is only relieving the local planning authority from paying compensation for revoking planning permission. It will be getting that permission statuiorily revoked instead of itself revoking it and paying compensation for so doing. I cannot see the effect that this will have on bringing stocks of land forward.
Suppose a developer is forced to start his building just as the five years is coming to an end. Do we really want partially completed buildings? If not, local planning authorities will be put to the task of serving completion notices all over the place. Not only will they have the burden of extra planning applications, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has pointed out, but they will also have the job of serving thousands of completion notices, since people will start building in an effort to avoid losing their planning permission.

Mr. MacDermot: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. He suggested that there would be a right of appeal only against a time-limiting condition, if that was something other than the standard period. That is not correct. This condition, like any other condition, can be the subject of an appeal.

Mr. Page: I am pleased to learn that, but why not write it into the Bill? I am not the only one who has interpreted this in the way I described. Many people experienced in these matters have apparently misinterpreted this. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the wording of the provision to see whether it is necessary to make the position abundantly clear in the Bill.
This is an important change in the law, a change which my hon. Friends do not find acceptable. We see no real reason for it and we believe it to be ill-conceived in thinking that it will either bring forward land for development or save any administration on the part of local planning authorities. Instead, they will be


overburdened with the renewal of applications, and where applications are not being renewed but work is being started, we will get the same sort of situation as we had when the Land Commission was coming into operation, with thousands of people digging silly little trenches all over the country merely to say that they have started developments and are proceeding with them. Now, if

they do not proceed with them, I assume that the local authorities will have to serve completion notices. The whole system as conceived in these provisions is wrong and we cannot accept it.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 121.

Division No. 162.]
AYES
[4.19 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Higgins, Terence L.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hordern, Peter
Silvester, Frederick


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Lubbock, Eric
Temple, John M.


Clegg, Walter
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Winstanley, Dr M. P.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Murton, Oscar



du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Eden, Sir John
Peyton, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Pink, B. Bonner
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Goodhew, Victor
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Grant, Anthony
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Moyle, Roland


Archer, Peter
Forrester, John
Murray, Albert


Armstrong, Ernest
Freeson, Reginald
Newens, Stan


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Garrett, W. E.
Ogden, Eric


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gourlay, Harry
O'Malley, Brian


Beaney, Alan
Gregory, Arnold
Orbach, Maurice


Bence, Cyril
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Orme, Stanley


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oswald, Thomas


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Blackburn, F.
Hamling, William

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hannan, William
Palmer, Arthur


Booth, Albert
Harper, Joseph
Parkyn, Brlan (Bedford)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pavitt, Laurencee


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Haseldine, Norman
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hazell, Bert
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Heffer, Eric S.
Reynolds, G. W.


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Horner, John
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hoy, James
Rose, Paul


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Chapman, Donald
Hunter, Adam
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Coe, Denis
Janner, Sir Barnett
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted
Slater, Joseph




Small, William


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lee, John (Reading)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Taverne, Dick


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlise)
Tinn, James


Dewar, Donald
McBride, Neil
Urwin, T. W.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
MacColl, James
Varley, Eric G.


Dickerrs,, James
MacDermot, Niall
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Doig, Peter
Macdonald, A. H.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Dunnett, Jack
McGuire Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglon)
Wallace, George


Dunwoody, Dr, John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mackintosh, John P.
Wellbeloved, James


Eadie, Alex
MacPherson Malcoim
Whitaker, Ben


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mallalieu, e. L. (Brigg)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ellis, John
Marks, Kenneth
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


English, Michael
Marquand, David
Woof, Robert


Ennals, David
Mendeison, J. J.



Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Mr. J. D. Concannon, and


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Alan Fitch.

Clause 57.

TERMINATION OF PLANNING PERMISSION BY REFERENCE TO TIME LIMIT.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 135, in page 48, line 24, leave out from 'than' to end of line 25 and insert:
'five years from the last date on which the development could be begun by virtue of such planning permission'.
We are again concerned with arbitrary time limits which are being imposed by the Bill. We wish to extend those limits. The Clause empowers a local planning authority to
serve a notice … stating that the planning permission will cease to have effect
if a development which is in hand is not completed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority within a period
not … earlier than twelve months from the date of the notice".
Whether or not 12 months is a reasonable period depends on the size of the development. A very large development possibly could not be completed in 12 months. There are many developments going on up and down the country where it would be quite onerous on a developer to be required to finish within the 12-month period. It would be physically impossible for him to do so. With that period, far too strong an instrument is put in the hands of the local authority, and I hope that the Minister will give greater latitude in this matter.

4.30 a.m.

Mr. MacDermot: Whether intentionally or otherwise, the Amendment is in effect almost a wrecking Amendment; it would defeat the purpose of the completion notice. A system of time-limited planning would be ineffectual unless there was a completion notice procedure, because anyone could avoid the effect of the time-limiting by some token commencement of the works. That is why the completion notice procedure is necessary, to see that someone who starts the works can be compelled either to complete them or lose the benefit of the planning permission which effectively, in those circumstances he would have abandoned.
One must see that the system works fairly and that he is given sufficient time in order reasonably in the circumstances to complete the work. The Bill provides

that the time he is to be given cannot be less than 12 months, but it can be more. If he can make out a reasonable case for having more than 12 months, he may be able to get it. He has the additional protection that a completion notice, including the question of the amount of time, must be confirmed by the Minister, and there is provision for the parties to have a hearing if they so desire. We feel that this adequately safeguards the position of the land owner, whoever he may be, while preventing a coach and horses being driven through the system of time-limited planning permissions. If we made the minimum period as long as five years there would be really no bite in the procedure.

Mr. Graham Page: Immediately the Bill becomes law, as it stands, it would be possible for a local authority to serve a completion notice on a development which had been started under a planning permission—it might be a £4 million or £5 million development—to be completed within 12 months. This is a possibility. It is also a possibility that the local authority will leave five-year planning permissions, as they will be in the future, until the last moment, and then the owner of the land on which the planning permission is effective will start developing and be served with a completion notice to build within 12 months.
Even if we were exaggerating in putting in the five-year period, it seems that the Bill needs some Amendment in this respect, and the matter should not be left to appeal to the Minister. The Minister told us that this is the safety valve, as it were. If the local authority is stupid over serving its completion notice and demands something unreasonable, that parties can go before the Minister. But it does not seem a very satisfactory procedure to draft the Bill in such a way that the local planning authority can take unwise and unreasonable steps and then say, "You can have it settled by the Minister." There is that danger in the Clause as drafted.

Mr. MacDermot: A completion notice cannot be served in respect of development which has already been begun before the Bill comes into force or which


is begun just after it comes into force. The completion notice procedure is related to a planning permission which, by virtue of Sections 54 and 55, is granted or is deemed to be granted subject to these conditions, which would include the Section 54 limitation or existing unlimited planning permissions which would normally, therefore, be five years from the passing of the Bill. It would apply to any new planning permissions subject to the five years or such other time limit as was imposed. The earliest a completion notice could be served after the passing of the Bill would be when permission was granted after the passing of the Bill for a lesser period than five years, say, three years. If work was started within that three years but not proceeded with, a completion notice could be served. The first completion notice would inevitably be many years ahead. If in a very large development such as the hon. Gentleman suggested the completion notice allowed only 12 months and that was an unreasonable period, it would not be confirmed by the Minister.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 58.

NEW PROVISION AS TO WHAT IS "OPERATIONAL LAND" OF STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 137, in page 49, to leave out line 42 and insert:
'has received specific Parliamentary approval; or
(c) granted by a development order in respect of development specifically described in the order; or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can discuss at the same time Amendment No. 138 and Amendment No. 139.

Mr. MacDermot: These are three technical Amendments to Clause 58(3). The purpose of Clause 58 is to provide that land of statutory undertakers does not become "operational" land until a "specific planning permission" attaches to it. A "specific planning permission" is defined as (a) a permission granted on a specific planning application; and (b) permission granted by a development order for development specifically authorised by a Private Act or an

order subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Paragraph (b) was drafted with Class XII of the General Development Order of 1963 in mind; but it is too narrow, because it fails to cover specific permissions granted in a special development order, or by the General Development Order for development specifically authorised by an order which, though not requiring affirmative resolution, is subject to special Parliamentary procedure—for example, an order made in favour of harbour undertakers under the Harbours Act, 1964. These Amendments rectify these defects.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 138, page 50, line 6, leave out ' is specifically authorised by statute ' and insert:
' has received specific Parliamentary approval'.
Amendment No. 139, page 50, line 9, after ' Parliament' insert:
' or by an order which has been brought into operation in accordance with the provisions of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Clause 59.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS BY STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS.

Mr. Lubbock: I beg to move Amendment No. 140, in page 50, line 23, to leave out paragraph (b).
The Minister of State said in Committee that the question of statutory undertakers was horribly complex. Everyone would agree with him, especially after hearing him move the previous series of Amendments. I hope that what I seek to do in this simple Amendment will be clear.
Subsection (2,b) provides that if a statutory undertaker proposes to acquire an interest in land with a view to its being used for the purpose of carrying on its undertaking, it goes straight to the Minister and by-passes the local authority. Some people consider that the privileges of statutory undertakers should be reduced much more drastically than I propose. The number of statutory undertakers is continuously increasing. There is a long list of them already. There is the original list of statutory undertakers in Section 221 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, and


since then we have had others, such as the British Airports Authority. We are now proposing to add more, such as the passenger transport authorities and the National Bus Company referred to in the Transport Bill.
All these additional bodies will have the status of statutory undertakers and the special privileges which attach to it. As the Minister of State said in Committee, this matter caused the Government some anxiety and they thought it right to modify the privileges which these bodies possess. I am in sympathy with him. But, although we are limiting the rights of statutory undertakers in these three Clauses, in some respects, we are, I am sorry to say, expanding them in others. We are reducing the amount of compensation to which they are entitled in certain circumstances, but paragraph (b) which I am seeking to delete is an expansion of the powers they already possess.
The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted an example in Standing Committee which I hope is a hypothetical one. Supposing the British Airports Authority bought up land adjoining Heathrow or Stansted airport and claimed that it was operational land on the strength of the existing adjoining airport, it could then construct runways on the land to link up with the existing airport. That was the situation which the hon. and learned Gentleman said we had to deal with in the three Clauses on statutory undertakers. As I understand it, if the paragraph is left in, this would be land which the British Airports Authority propose to acquire an interest in with a view to its being used as part of their undertaking. They want to have land next door to Heathrow for some new runways, and under Clause 59 they are exempt from normal planning procedures. They can go straight to the sponsoring Ministers and by-pass the local authority.
The local authorities, would, I believe, approve of what I am seeking to do by this Amendment. They would like to be able to express an opinion on important planning matters such as this. They entirely approve the object of Clause 60, under which the British Airports Authority would not be entitled to full compensation if permission were refused

for the development, but they do not see any reason in general why the statutory undertakers should be put in a privileged position for this class of land which is proposed to be acquired for use by the undertaking.
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentlemen will agree that the deletion of paragraph (b) would be a great improvement.

Mr. MacDermot: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has quite followed what has happened. We are not creating a new right; we are restoring a right which already exists and which has been taken away in another part of the Bill. At present in the case instanced by the hon. Gentleman, the British Airports Authority can acquire land adjoining the airfield and they can claim that it is operational land. If there is a dispute between them and the planning authority on whether it is operational land, that issue is determined by the sponsoring Minister alone. The planning Minister does not come into it. Once it is established to be operational land, if the planning authority refuse planning permission, they have to pay compensation at present of 100 per cent. We are saying that in future newly acquired land of that kind cannot become operational land until it gets planning permission.
The statutory undertaker in such a situation now would apply to the planning authority for planning permission. If it were refused, they then have a right of appeal. Appeals on planning applications by statutory undertakers are at present decided jointly by the sponsoring Minister and the planning Minister, and that it what this paragraph provides. It is an appeal machinery. If that planning permission is given, provided it satisfies the other tests, the land will then become operational land. In future in practice the determination this way round of what is operational land will be decided jointly by the two Ministers, and in this way planning interests will be properly balanced with the interests of statutory undertakers. There are other provisions elsewhere that ensure that this is carried through, and that the operational land decisions will be determined jointly by the two Ministers.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 60.

COMPENSATION FOR STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS IN CASES OF ADVERSE PLANNING DECISIONS.

Amendment made: No. 142, in page 51, line 14, leave out Clause 60.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Clause 66.

UNOPPOSED REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION OF PLANNING PERMISSION.

4.45 a.m.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 143, in page 53, line 36, leave out from ' permission ' to ' have ' in line 38 and insert
'but have not submitted the order to the Minister for confirmation by him, and—
(a) the owner and the occupier of the land and all persons who in the authority's opinion will be affected by the order'.
I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss with it Amendments Nos. 144 and 145. The intention is to secure that the new procedure introduced by this Clause for enabling unopposed revocation and modification orders to take effect without being confirmed works in the way intended without undue complication.
Amendment No. 143 secures an improvement in this way and does two things. First, the insertion of the words
but have not submitted the order to the Minister for confirmation by him
is designed to make it clear that, so long as the order is in draft form, it has not been submitted in the sense that it has to be confirmed by the Minister. Second, it spells out the categories of persons to receive notices in a clear way so that the rights of those concerned will be fully known, not by reference to Clause 27(3), but as they appear in the Amendment in these words:
the owner and the occupier of the land and all persons who in the authority's opinion will be affected by the order".
Amendment 144 makes certain that the essential precondition for operating the Clause is quite clear; that is, that the affected persons do not object to the order. The existing reference to the parties not wishing to be heard is not here, since the fact that they do not want a hearing does not necessarily preclude their being opposed to the order,

and it is essential for the whole of this part of the Clause that the order to be made is unopposed.
Amendment 145 removes the last two lines of the existing subsection (2) and inserts a new subsection putting the authority under a specific duty to serve notice on the affected parties on the same lines as the advertisement required under the same subsection. In addition, the notices are to state that, in accordance with subsection (5), no compensation will be payable if the affected parties do not ask the Minister for a hearing and the order, therefore, takes effect without being confirmed by the Minister. If there is any question of a hearing, the procedure under this part of the Clause does not operate.

Mr. Graham Page: We are here dealing with an important matter. It is a new procedure whereby the local planning authority could, if it did not carry it out with great care and if the procedure was not laid down for the full protection of the individual, deprive him of the right to compensation on revocation of planning permission. With these Amendments, there is full protection for the individual, so long as the procedure does make certain that the individual knows what rights he is giving up. He is giving up the right to compensation for revocation of a planning permission. If he is satisfied that there is no compensation he can claim, that he has not incurred any expense he can recover on revocation, and if he makes that known to the local planning authority, clearly then the procedure should work. If it does work successfully it is going to save a lot of trouble to the local planning authority, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary has got the Amendments right. I have not been able to pick a hole in them, anyway.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 144, in page 53, line 39, leave out from ' not' to ' and' in line 41 and insert ' object to the order'.

No. 145, in page 54, leave out lines 16 and 17 and insert:
(3) The authority shall also serve notice to the same effect on the persons mentioned in subsection (l)(a) above, and the notice shall include a statement of the effect of subsection (6) of this section.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Clause 75.

NEW POWERS TO AUTHORISE STOPPING-UP AND DIVERSION OF HIGHWAYS.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I beg to move Amendment No. 147, in page 61, line 10, at end insert 'or raising or lowering'.
I can be very brief. The only point I wish to have confirmed on this Amendment is the actual meaning of the words used in the Clause as it stands. I want to be satisfied that where one refers to "the stopping-up or diversion of any other highway" that would include the provision of a subway, or if necessary, a light footbridge in certain circumstances.
This is a problem which naturally affects a number of amenity and other bodies. I believe the definition is satisfactory if one takes into account certain provisions of the Transport Act.

Mr. Skeffington: I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. The sub-section does apply the Transport Act.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, Amendment No. 148, in page 61, line 18, at end insert—
Provided that in determining to make an Order under this subsection the Minister shall have regard to the interest of the users of the subsidiary highway.
This is another rather small problem. As one reads the Clause it does seem to suggest that we are very concerned with the provisions for the safety and free movement of traffic on the main arterial roads, but are not at all concerned about the position of people wishing to use minor roads or even footpaths and who may be affected.
Again I believe that other provisions of other Acts may meet this point, but there are many bodies outside this House who are concerned about this matter, and I should like an assurance that the words proposed in my Amendment are not required to satisfy the object I am seeking.

Mr. Skeffington: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Subsection (4) of Clause 75 does apply

Section 154 of the principal Act, and this enables the users he has in mind to be protected.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 61, line 23, after 'footpath', insert 'or bridleway'.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment we can take Government Amendment No. 150.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I believe this Amendment is acceptable to the Government. It is a minor Amendment merely ensuring that when we talk about the reduction of roads to footpaths we are also thinking of their reduction from roads to bridleways.

Mr. Skeffington: I would advise the House to accept this Amendment. It will make a useful addition.

Mr. Allason: In Committee we were told that this was in order to provide pedestrian precincts. I am surprised if now it turns out that it will also provide bridleways across the countryside. Is it really intended that this Clause should be used for closing roads and turning them into bridleways? This was not explained in Committee. When I read the Amendment I visualised camels being led through a bazaar.

Mr. Skeffington: Normally speaking, that provision will be an urban one. But it is conceivable—although it will only infrequently happen—that, on the edge of a town, there may be an order which would cover a bridleway. It is for that circumstance that we thought it a good idea to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: We have heard a lot about bridleways on Amendment No. 149 but we have heard nothing about Amendment No. 150, which consists of ten lines or so.

Mr. MacDermot: I do not know what is worrying the hon. Gentleman about Amendment No. 150. Its effect is to change both the class of persons qualified to claim compensation and the basis on which the compensation shall be payable. If there is any specific question, I shall be glad to try to answer it.

Mr. Graham Page: This is an important alteration. In the Bill as drafted, any frontager on the highway could claim compensation. This is now being reduced to a claim for compensation for the interruption of access to the property. It may be the right thing to do; it may be the intention of the Government not to give compensation for any other damage to property adjoining that highway. [Interruption.] I am sure that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) is interested in this, but if he is not perhaps he would like to go and listen to something else. It is difficult to put a point like this when there is mumbling from below the Gangway.
The alteration brought about by the Amendment is that compensation is now to be restricted to the loss of access to the property and will not apply to any other damage to the property.

Mr. MacDermot: I would not describe it as restrictive. On the contrary, it gives a more generous basis of compensation because, in addition to the compensation for the difference in the value of the land, it proposes to increase what can be claimed by way of disturbance so as to include any other loss or damage which is so attributable. We envisage that, in some of these cases, the real damage, as it were, which will be suffered will be the need to provide for other access and do works, perhaps, to provide access at the rear. It is this that we thought should be recoverable. We have thus extended the compensation provisions in this way. The model on which it is based, and the closest equivalent, is that compensation payable on a discontinuance order.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 150, in page 61, line 28, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
(3) Any person who at the time of an order under subsection (2) above has an interest in land having lawful access to a highway to which the order relates shall be entitled to be compensated by the local planning authority in respect of any depreciation in the value of his interest which is directly attributable to the order and any other loss or damage which is so attributable.
In this subsection ' lawful access' means access authorised by planning permission granted under the principal Act or the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 or access in

respect of which no such permission is necessary.
(4) A claim for compensation under subsection (3) shall be made to the local planning authority within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Clause 86.

SHORT TITLE, CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 155, in page 64, line 33, at end to add:
'and the Minister shall maintain a central register open for public inspection recording the dates upon which and the areas in respect of which the provisions of the Act shall have respectively come into operation'.
This is to amend in particular the provision in the Clause which permits the Minister to bring this Bill into operation at various dates, to apply it to various parts of the country and to apply various Clauses at various times. We are not to have the Bill brought into operation at any one time nor at any one place. It is not to apply to the country as a whole. Certain Clauses and even certain repeals in the repeal Schedule will be brought in piecemeal.
It will, therefore, be difficult for the public to know what parts of the Act have been brought into operation and where they have been brought into operation. This Amendment suggests some sort of central register, to be kept by the Ministry, so that it will be convenient for people to search the register quickly and see what parts of the Act are in operation in what places.
It may well be, if a development is contemplated in some area, the quickest way to find out will be from some central register, instead of searching through stacks of Statutory Instruments bringing the Act into operation piecemeal. Can the Minister give us the assurance that there will be such a register maintained at the Ministry?

5.0 a.m.

Mr. Skeffington: The Government think that this is a very helpful suggestion. For reasons which I need not go into now, we would like to re-draft the subsection, but in principle, we accept the idea.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If I understand this


to be an assurance to bring this in at a later stage, I would beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — New Schedule.

CONSTRUCTION OF REFERENCES IN SECTIONS 51 AND 52 TO 'THE RESPONSIBLE MINISTER OR MINISTERS '.

1. In relation to matters specified in the first column of the Table below (being in each case a matter mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) of section 51(1) above as one which may be referred to a Planning Inquiry Commission under that section) ' the

TABLE


Referred matter
Affecting England only
Affecting Wales only
Affecting both England and Wales


1. Application for planning permission or appeal under section 23 of the principal Act—





(a) relating to operational land of statutory undertakers,
The Minister of Housing and Local Government and the appropriate Minister (if different).
The Secretary of State and the appropriate Minister (if different).
The Secretary of State, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the appropriate Minister (if different)


(b) relating to other land
Minister of Housing and Local Governement.
The Secretary of State
The Secretary of State and the Minister of Housing and Local Government.


 2. Proposal that a government department should give a direction under section 41 of the principal Act or that development should be carried out by a government department.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister (if different) in charge of the government department concerned.
The Secretary of State and the Minister (if different) in charge of the government department concerned.
The Secretary of State, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister (if different) in charge of the government department concerned.





—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO DEVELOPMENT PLANS IN GREATER LONDON.

Amendments made: No. 158, in page 66, line 26, leave out ' 3' and insert:

'(Approval or rejection of structure plan by Minister)'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Mr. Lubbock: I beg to move Amendment No. 159, in page 67, line 20, at end insert:
12A. The Greater London Council, before submitting to the Minister proposals for alterations to the structure plan, shall consult with the London borough councils and the Common

responsible Minister or Ministers' for the purposes of sections 51 and 52 of this Act—

(a) in the case of a matter affecting England only, are those specified opposite in the second column of the Table;
(b) in the case of a matter affecting Wales only, are those specified opposite in the third column of the Table; and
(c) in the case of a matter affecting both England and Wales, are those specified opposite in the fourth column of the Table.

2. Where an entry in the second, third or fourth column of the Table specifies two or more Ministers, that entry shall be construed as referring to those Ministers acting jointly.

3. In relation to operational land of statutory undertakers, a reference in the Table to 'the appropriate Minister' shall be construed in accordance with the definition of that expression in section 221(1) of the principal Act.

Council or, in the case of alterations affecting only part of the area of Greater London, with such of those councils as are affected by the alterations, and shall give to each of those councils an opportunity to make representations with respect to the alterations and shall consider any representations so made.

In Greater London we have for some time felt that there has been uneasiness between the London boroughs, or some of them, and the Greater London Council on matters of planning, and this arises from the feeling in some of these Boroughs, that the Greater London Council is acting as a kind of "Big Brother" and interfering in matters which do not concern it.

In the London Government Act there is provision for all kinds of consultation


between the Greater London Council and the London boroughs. These have not always worked as well as one would have hoped. It is my aim to secure some improvement in the drafting of the Bill so as to ensure that the relationships between the G.L.C. on the one hand, and the London boroughs on the other are as harmonious and as workable as they can be.

Under Clause 1 the Greater London Council will have to consult the Boroughs about any matters which they have to keep under review, as required by that Clause. Clause 4 is concerned with alterations to the structure plan, resulting from the additional surveys which have been conducted in Clause 1, but there is no similar obligation there on the Greater London Council. In Greater London there are special provisions relating to the structure plan, and that is what we are concerned with in this Schedule. As I understand it, the Greater London Development Plan, provided for under Section 25 of the London Government Act, 1963, will become the structure plan, when it is completed, and the repeal of that Section will not be effected by the Government until this plan has been approved. Under Section 26(2) of the Act the G.L.C. could have altered the Greater London Development Plan, but Section 27(3) of the Act would have required it to consult the Boroughs before doing so. In this Amendment I have copied, with minor alterations, the wording of Section 27(3) of the London Government Act, so that there is a duty upon the G.L.C. to consult with the various councils before making any alterations to the structure plan, or to consult with those of them which may be affected by any such alterations.

The Parliamentary Secretary knows that in my borough in particular there has been some anxiety on this. I have been in correspondence with him and he has given a most reassuring answer which, I am sure, the Borough of Bromley will be delighted to have. He said that on repeal of Section 27(3) of the London Government Act, his intention is that provision for consultation between the G.L.C. and the London Boroughs on amendment to the Greater London Development Plan and between the boroughs and the G.L.C. on amendments

to borough structure plans when these are approved, shall be prescribed in regulations under Clause 11.

All I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary this morning is whether he does not think it would be a good thing to put these words in, to relieve him of the necessity of making regulations later.

Mr. Skeffington: I confirm that intention, as I wrote to him. It is not necessary to have the words in the Bill and it is better to have consultation by regulation or circular as is provided for elsewhere.

Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful for that assurance and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendments made: No. 160 in page 67, line 28, leave out ' 5' and insert ' (Preparation of local plans)'.

No. 161, in page 67, line 40, leave out ' 5(4) and (6)' and insert ' (Preparation of local plans) (6) and (9)'.

No. 162, in page 67, line 44, leave out ' 5(7)' and insert ' Preparation of local plans) (10)'.

No. 163, in page 68, line 5, leave out ' 5(9)' and insert ' (Publicity for preparation of local plans) (2)'.

No. 164, in page 68, line 9, leave out ' 5' and insert ' (Preparation of local plans) or (Publicity for preparation of local plans)'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3

CONTROL OF WORKS FOR DEMOLITION, ALTERATION OR EXTENSION OF LISTED BUILDINGS.

Amendment made: No. 246, in page 72, line 35, leave out ' section 33' and insert ' listed building'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 165, in page 72, leave out lines 39 to 43.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can discuss Amendment No. 169.

Mr. MacDermot: These Amendments set out the procedure by which local planning authorities are required to notify the Minister of applications made to them for listed building consent, to assist the Minister in deciding whether


to call in a consent. The provision in new paragraph (3) sets out the procedure for planning authorities outside Greater London and means that a copy will have to be sent to the Minister of any consent which they propose to grant. After notifying the Minister, the planning authority must not grant consent on the application until 28 days have passed from the date of notification, or the Minister has stated that he does not propose to intervene. The London Borough procedure repeats the current procedure in the relevant regulations.
Paragraph (5) enables the Minister to give directions exempting specific types of application from this notification procedure. He may not exempt application for consent to demolish listed buildings. The present intention is to issue a direction exempting from the notification procedure applications for works which would affect only the interiors of Grade II non-starred buildings. All others will be subject to the Minister's supervision. The power will be used to keep the amenity societies informed of applications.

Mr. Allason: I wonder whether the Minister could tell us what has happened to the other specified persons in Paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 3 who have been taken out in lines 39 to 43. There was a requirement to notify specified persons who were—

Mr. MacDermot: My last comment was meant to cover them. Paragraph 5(2) re-enacts the original paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 3.

Mr. Allason: I had got that. I was about to say that it occurred there. It is not clear which notification is which. There is a requirement to notify under the new paragraph 3(1) and there is also a requirement to notify under paragraph 5. It all depends on what is specified, but it is a little confusing, if the Minister has 28 days to consider whether he wants to call something in, why there should be a separate requirement to notify the Minister. Is it a different form which has to be filled in or is it different parts?
Paragraph 5(2) says that the Minister may call in the application for consent. It really is a question of how he is notified. Is he notified under paragraph 3(1)(a) or is it a case where he has had

informal discussions and decides to call the matter in?
I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what is the intention of the change. By "change" I mean the effect of this Amendment from what was in the Bill previously. Is it very much stricter control by the Minister and the G.L.C., or is it only a tightening up and putting in greater detail the arrangements which are intended, but that the general effect of what goes to the Minister will remain the same?
It is interesting to note that under this provision the G.L.C. can give absolute instructions to boroughs, which is liable to put them to considerable expense, and, of course, in turn the Minister can do the same thing to local authorities.

Mr. MacDermot: There is no change for London. We have merely re-enacted the existing provisions. The first main change in paragraph 5 is that we are writing specifically into the Bill that there is no power of exemption for applications for consent to demolish listed buildings. These have to be notified to the Minister.
The second main change is that we are limiting the notification to the Minister of those cases in which the authorities are proposing to grant consent. This will save paper work at the Ministry. Those are all that we need to consider for the purpose of call-in. Otherwise, we will be able to exempt certain classes, but I have indicated the only class which at present we are proposing to make the subject of an exemption.
Paragraph 5(2) is a separate matter. This is to keep alive the power which will enable amenity societies to be informed of the applications.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 166, in page 72, line 44, leave out ' section 33' and insert ' listed building '.— [Mr. MacDermot.]

5.15 a.m.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 167, in page 72, line 46, at end insert:
2.—(1) Regulations under this Act may provide that an application for listed building consent shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by one or other of the certificates


described in paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 16(1) of the principal Act (requirement of certificate that applicant for planning permission is the owner of the land or has given notice to the owners of his intended application, or has tried to do so) and may make with respect to such certificates provision corresponding to subsections (2) to (4), (6) and (7) of that section.
(2) If any person issues a certificate which purports to comply with the requirements of regulations made by virtue of this paragraph and which contains a statement which he knows to be false or misleading in a material particular, or recklessly issues a certificate which purports to comply with those requirements and which contains a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.
This is to enable the Minister to make Regulations about the provision of certificates to applications for listed building consent analogous to those in Section 16 of the 1962 Act in relation to planning permissions. It is to ensure that an application for such consent is not made by a person with no interest in the building without the knowledge of the owner or the tenant.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 168, in page 73, line 2, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 169, in page 73, line 14, at end insert:

3.—(1) Subject to the following provisions, a local planning authority (other than a London borough council) to whom application is made for listed building consent shall not grant such consent, unless they have notified the Minister of the application (giving particulars of the works for which the consent is required) and either—

(a) a period of twenty-eight days has expired, beginning with the date of the notification, without the Minister having directed the reference of the application to him; or
(b) the Minister has notified the authority that he does not intend to require the reference of the application.

(2) The Minister may at any time before the said period expires give notice to the authority that he requires further time in which to consider whether to require the reference of the application to him and the foregoing sub-paragraph shall then have effect with the substitution for a period of twenty-eight days or such longer period as may be specified in the Minister's notice.

4.—(1) Subject to the following provisions, where application for listed building consent is made to a local planning authority, being a

London borough council, and the authority do not determine to refuse it, they shall notify the Greater London Council of the application (giving particulars of the works for which the consent is required) and shall not grant such consent unless authorised or directed to do so under the following sub-paragraph.

(2) On receipt of notification under sub-paragraph (1) above the Greater London Council may either—

(a) authorise the local planning authority to grant or refuse the application as they think fit; or
(b) give them directions as to how they are to determine it.

(3) The Greater London Council shall not authorise the local planning authority as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(a) above, nor under sub-paragraph (2)(b) above direct them to grant listed building consent, unless the Council have notified the Minister of the application made to the local planning authority (giving particulars of the works for which the consent is required) and either—

(a)a period of twenty-eight days has expired, beginning with the date of the notification, without the Minister having directed the reference of the application to him; or
(b) the Minister has notified the Council that he does not intend to require the reference of the application.

(4) The Minister may at any time before the said period of twenty-eight days expires give notice to the Council that he requires further time in which to consider whether to require the reference of the application to him and the foregoing sub-paragraph shall then have effect with the substitution for the period of twenty-eight days of such longer period as may be specified in the Minister's notice.

5.—(1) The Minister may give directions that, in the case of such descriptions of application for listed building consent as he may specify, other than such consent for the demolition of a building, paragraphs 3 and 4 above shall not apply; and accordingly, so long as the directions are in force local planning authorities may determine applications of such descriptions in any manner they think fit, without notifying the Minister or, as the case may be, the Greater London Council.

(2) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Schedule, the Minister may give directions to local planning authorities requiring them, in such cases or classes of case as may be specified in the directions, to notify to him and to such other persons as may be so specified any applications made to them for listed building consent, and the decisions taken by the authorities thereon.

No. 170, in line 16 leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 171, in line 45 leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 172, in page 74, line 9, leave out 'section 33 ' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 247, in line 17 leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 173, in line 39 leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 174, in page 75, line 9, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 175, in line 26 leave out ' section 33 ' and insert ' listed building'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 176, in page 75, line 30, at end insert:

8.—(1) The following provisions shall have effect where the local planning authority have made an order under paragraph 5 of this Schedule but have not submitted the order to the Minister for confirmation by him, and—

(a)the owner and occupier of the land and all persons who in the authority's opinion will be affected by the order have notified the authority in writing that they do not object to the order; and
(b)it appears to the authority that no claim for compensation is likely to arise under paragraph 7 above.

(2) The authority shall advertise in the prescribed manner the fact that the order has been made, and the advertisement shall specify—

(a)the period (not less than twenty-eight days from the date on which the advertisement first appears) within which persons affected by the order may give notice to the Minister that they wish for an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose; and
(b)the period (not less than fourteen days from the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (a) above) at the expiration of which, if no such notice is given to the Minister, the order may take effect by virtue of this paragraph and without being confirmed by the Minister.

(3)The authority shall also serve notice to the same effect on the persons mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above, and the notice shall include a statement of the effect of sub-paragraph (7) below.

(5)The authority shall send a copy of any advertisement published under sub-paragraph (2) above to the Minister, not more than three days after the publication.

(6) If within the period referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(a) above no person claiming to be affected by the order has given notice to the Minister as aforesaid and the Minister has not directed that the order be submitted to him for confirmation, the order shall at the expiration of the period referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(b) above take effect by virtue of this paragraph and without being confirmed by the Minister as required by paragraph 5 of this Schedule.

(6)This paragraph does not apply to an order revoking or modifying a listed building

consent granted by the Minister under Part V of this Act or under this Schedule.

(7) No compensation shall be payable under paragraph 7 of this Schedule in respect of an order under paragraph 5 thereof which takes effect by virtue of this paragraph and without being confirmed by the Minister.

Mr. Allason: This follows the wording of Clause 76, suitably modified. We speak here of compensation for listed building consent, but, under Clause 34(2), that can also be planning consent. If someone says that he does not want to claim for listed building consent, I think that this does not bar him from making a claim for revocation of planning consent, which he might well wish to make.

Mr. MacDermot: Listed building consent does not necessarily carry with it planning consent. This deals with the revocation of listed building consent and there are other provisions to deal with revocation of planning consent.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 177, in page 75, line 33, leave out 'section 35' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 178, in page 76, line 3, leave out ' section 35 ' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 179, in line 12, leave out 'section 35' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 180, in line 25, leave out 'section 35' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 181, in line 36, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.2

No. 182, in line 46, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 183, in page 76, line 46, after ' may ', insert ' subject to the agreement of the owner'.
The purchase notice is valid under Section 35(l)(a) of the principal Act if the land is useless in its existing state or under conditions attached to the consent or with all the other consents which have been given. Before the applicant can press his purchase notice, he must show that. Section 35(4) takes no account of prospective use involving new development or works requiring consent, save where the local planning authority or the Minister undertakes to grant consent.
This is very similar to the case we have already had, but I want to press


it again because we did not get any success on the last occasion. The Minister may quash a purchase notice by directing that consent for other works can be granted. Suppose the owner does not agree to this. Surely the Government have not got the intention of forcing this upon an unwilling owner? I find it terribly hard to believe that they really are prepared to do this, that they will say to the owner of a house, "No. By carrying out certain works this property can be made viable" when the owner does not want to carry out the works, and has reasonable ground for resisting. I am sure that the owner's consent really ought to be obtained, and I trust that the Government will this time accept the Amendment.

Mr. MacDermot: I will see if I can persuade the hon. Gentleman. Quite a lot of heat was engendered last time we discussed this. What we are dealing with is the situation where the owner of a listed building is trying to get the local authority to purchase it, so it is not as though the wretched owner were being compelled to do works to the house he does not want to do or to retain a house he does not want. In order to get the local authority to buy it he has got to show that it is what my hon. Friend called a white elephant and that there is no reasonable prospect of its having beneficial use. It is surely a fair answer for the authority to say, "We are prepared to give a grant of planning permission for something which will make it of beneficial use." If he does not want that, and does not want to do it himself, the answer is, "Put it on the market." That is not a hardship, because he wants to sell it, anyway.

Mr. Allason: Yes, but this is quite unreasonable. If there is a cottage in the High Street, and it is a residential property, the Minister says, "If you put a shop front in that cottage and turn it into a tea shop you can make a packet out of it." The Minister nods his head. Those are precisely the circumstances which could apply here. This, I think, is utterly unreasonable. Why should somebody have to turn a cottage into a tea shop if he does not want to?

Mr. MacDermot: Sell it to somebody else with the benefit of permission to

use it as a tea shop. I should think it very easy to sell.

Mr. Allason: The Minister nods his head. He does agree that this is the way the property has got to go. It may turn out profitable to sell it as a tea shop; it may turn out to be very unprofitable. I have known plenty of tea shops to go bust. Why should the local authority be able to avoid its responsibilities simply by this means? I think this is thoroughly unreasonable. The local authority is simply to pass off its responsibility to somebody else. If it is going to be so profitable to turn the house into a tea shop, why does not the local authority turn it into a tea shop and sell it and make a profit, instead of the owner?

Amendment negatived.

Further Amendments made: No. 184, in page 76, line 47, leave out 'section 35' and insert 'listed building'; No. 185, in page 77, line 1, leave out 'section 33' and insert ' listed building '.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 186, in page 77, line 2, at end insert:
(5) If it appears to the Minister that the land, or any part of the land, could be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use within a reasonable time by the carrying out of any development for which planning permission ought to be granted, he may, in lieu of confirming the listed building purchase notice, or in lieu of confirming it so far as it relates to that part of the land, as the case may be, direct that planning permission for that development shall be granted in the event of an application being made in that behalf.
Paragraph (9) of the Schedule lays down the courses of action open to the Minister after a listed building purchase notice is transmitted to him. As the Bill stands, the Minister is not empowered to direct a grant of planning permission, as distinct from a listed building consent, when considering a listed building purchase notice. The Amendment would empower him to do so.

Mr. Allason:: Are we allowed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to discuss the proposed Opposition Amendment to the Government Amendment; in line 3, after 'may', insert
'subject to the agreement of the owner'


and, if so, are we also allowed to vote on it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Member may discuss the Amendment to the Amendment, but it cannot be voted upon.

Mr. Allason: I regret that because I am astonished at the way in which the citizen is being treated these days. The arguments which I could adduce on this matter are the same as those my hon. Friends put forward in the last discussion, and I rise merely to record my protest at this state of affairs.

Mr. MacDermot: I answer that protest by saying that this has been a feature of purchase notice procedure since 1947 and was maintained during the tenure of office of the Conservative Party.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 187, in page 77, line 16, leave out 'section 35' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 188, in line 46, leave out 'section 35' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 189, in page 78, line 2, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 190, in line 5, leave out 'section 35' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 191, in line 8, leave out 'section 35' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 192, in line 12, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 193, in line 14, leave out 'section 35'.

No. 194, in line 19, leave out from 'A' to end of line and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

No. 195, to leave out line 22.—[Mr. A llason.]

No. 196, in line 26, leave out from 'a' to 'shall' in line 27 and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.

No. 197, in line 30, leave out from 'a' to 'at' in line 31 and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.

No. 198, in line 34, leave out from 'a' to end of line and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.

No. 199, in line 45, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 200, in page 79, line 3, leave out 'under section 37'.

No. 201, in line 36, leave out from 'the to 'or' in line 37 and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.

No. 202, in line 29, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 203, in page 80, line 7, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 204, in line 11, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

No. 205, in line 24, leave out '41(2)' and insert '41(3)'.

No. 206, in line 32, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 207, in page 80, line 33, leave out 'and with it' and insert 'but not'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understood that this Amendment was considered with an earlier Amendment.

Mr. Page: I do not recollect it being discussed. If it was, then, in the words of the Amendment, I was "with it". In using the phrases "and with it" and "but not" the Amendment may sound nonsense, but it has a great deal of sense behind it. The provision of Part V to which the Amendment relates states:
Any proceedings on or arising out of an application for section 33 consent made while the building preservation notice was in force shall lapse and with it any consent granted with respect to the building.
I would read "any consent" as covering any planning permission or anything of that nature to do with the property. Why should planning consent lapse merely because a building preservation notice has failed? Under Clause 41 the building preservation notice, I understand, is a holding operation prior to the listing of the building as a listed building. If when the building preservation notice is removed it takes with it any other consents, it seems that just by putting up a building preservation notice and then removing it the local planning authority could rub out all planning permissions. I cannot think that that is the intention. Perhaps the Minister can explain the words, "and with it" a little better.

5.30 a.m.

Mr. MacDermot: I am not sure that the words "and with it" are grammatical because it is the proceedings that lapse and one could hardly refer to them as "it", but that is a matter which can be looked at.
The point made by the hon. Member is misconceived. The consent which lapses with the building preservation notice is the listed building consent. The error in his argument is that a listed building consent can operate as a planning permission. The converse is true —a planning permission can operate as a listed building consent. There is no question of withdrawing the benefit of a planning permission merely by allowing a listed building consent to lapse. The Amendment, therefore, is unnecessary.

Mr. Graham Page: If the Minister gives the assurance that that is the intention, I accept it, but it is certainly not what is said grammatically or ungrammatically in the Clause. It needs a small amendment in the wording. On his assurance that that will be done, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 208, in page 80, line 35, leave out from 'Any' to 'served' and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 5.

ADAPTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF ENACTMENTS, ETC.

Amendments made: No. 209, in page 85, line 32, after 'Minister', insert 'shall serve a notice'.

No. 210, in line 35, at end insert:
'shall serve a notice in the prescribed form'. —[Mr. MacDermot.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 211, in page 85, leave out lines 40 to 43.
This Amendment would leave out paragraph 17, which deals with the power of the local planning authority to make agreements with landowners restricting or regulating the development or use of their land. As the law stands, when a local

planning authority makes such an agreement with the owner of the land for developing that land it is essential that the agreement should have the approval of the Minister. Otherwise it is invalid. Paragraph 17 seeks to remove that condition and provides that no longer shall it be necessary to have the Minister's approval to agreements of this sort between the local planning authority and developing owners.
These agreements which restrict or regulate the development of the land, may contain financial provisions. That is clearly stated in Section 37 of the principal Act. They take the place of planning permission and the developer may on occasion be under pressure to get on with the development he wishes to undertake. No doubt an agreement of this sort may seem to him to be quicker and easier than putting in a planning application, having it refused and going to appeal against that refusal. If he can negotiate it with the local planning authority and have it by agreement, that may seem the course of least resistance to him.
There is in that set-up a risk that the agreement is unfair to the developer, or it may be too generous to him. A local planning authority may wish to get an agreement of that sort through and may permit development which would not have been permitted had it been done in the ordinary way by application for planning permission. I am in favour of giving the local authority wide powers to manage its own affairs, but before doing so we should have the facts on which to judge. I do not know what facts there are behind the amendment of the law contained in paragraph 17.
How frequently has approval been withheld for such agreements when local authorities have applied for the Minister's approval? Does the Minister turn them down frequently? How long does it take to approve such agreements? Are local authorities and developers held up for any length of time while agreements are being approved by the Minister? What size of staff is maintained at the Ministry to deal with this? Is it overburdening the Ministry to undertake this work? For what reasons are these agreements thrown out? Before agreeing to the amendment of the law, we should be given some facts.

Mr. MacDermot: I do not know if I can make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman. This is the first of a series of Amendments dealing with a number of questions which were raised by the hon. Gentleman in a speech which lasted for more than an hour which he made at our last sitting in Standing Committee. I did not have time to answer them all then. I agreed to write to the hon. Gentleman. I have written to him and answered all his questions. If we are to have these debates all over again and put all these matters on the record, it will carry us very late indeed. It is already late. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to put only those questions which are essential to put on the record. Then if he will refer to his speech in Committee, perhaps that is the way in which, without duplicating the record, I can answer the questions shortly.
The reason why we want to abolish this procedure of requiring the consent of the Minister to these agreements is that it is well known and understood now by authorities what are the proper kinds of agreements to make. Our control is not resulting in our disapproving of agreements because they are objectionable. Our departmental lawyers have to spend a lot of time going into detail over agreements which have already been drawn up by local authorities' own lawyers, and we do not believe that this is the type of supervision that we ought to be exercising. It is wasteful of time. It is not necessary. This is a matter which can be left to the local authorities.
An argument was raised previously that there might be abuse of this procedure and some element of duress by local authorities towards the planning applicant. If such a mischief exists, the existing procedure is not apt in any way to deal with it, because, by the time that it reaches us, it is an agreement. We have no reason to think that it is anything other than one freely arrived at. The remedy for such a mischief, if it exists—we have no evidence that it does —lies in the hands of the applicant: he can refuse to submit to the duress and insist on his application and, if he does not get permission, to appeal against the refusal.

Mr. Graham Page: I thought that I had introtduced the Amendment very

briefly, and then I was reprimanded. It is too bad of the Minister to deprive the Sleeper of the House of the soporific effect of our voices. He is sound asleep now. How he leads the House when he is sound asleep, I do not know. They should call him the Duke of Plaza Toro in future.
I am grateful for the letter the Minister wrote me, but it was only a letter to me, and these points are important and should go on the record. It may well be that some Amendments will need to be made, but in view of the assurance he has given me on this one I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment 212, in page 85, line 43, at end add:
18. For section 43(1) there shall be substituted the following:—
'If any person who proposes to carry out or has carried out any operations on land or who proposes to make or has made any change in the use of land wishes to have it determined whether the carrying out of these operations or the making of that change would or did as the case may be constitute or involve development of the land and if so whether an application for planning permission in respect thereof is required under this part of this Act, having regard to the provisions of any existing planning permission or permissions and to the provisions of the development order, he may, either as part of an application for planning permission, or without any such application, apply to the local planning authority to determine that question.'.
This matter was discussed in Committee, but not on the Schedule. The Amendment deals with Section 43 of the 1962 Act, which has been very useful for testing the legality of proposed developments—that is, whether they need planning permission—both operations and change of use. But it could be made far more useful by using it to test the legality of past development, whether of an operational type or of change of use. By redrafting the Section it could be used for that purpose.
I do not mean that it should whitewash deliberate flouting of town planning law in the past. It should be used after a breach of planning law. But it becomes even more important, now that a limitation period for change of use is being removed, that one should have some method of testing the validity of a development without inviting an enforcement notice.
The Amendment will be found to be satisfactorily drafted if the principle is accepted that Section 43 procedure should apply to proposed development in the future and not merely to past development.

Mr. MacDermot: As I indicated in one of our earlier debates, I fully accept that it is necessary for us to bring forward a satisfactory certification procedure to accompany the abolition of the four-year rule in the more narrow field in which we now propose that abolition. The Amendment seeks to deal with that situation. But, based as it is on Section 43 of the 1962 Act, we think that it is framed on too broad a front, and that it does not really deal with the right question. It is too wide because it does far more than is necessary to fill the gap created by the now partial abolition of the four-year rule.
For example, even in cases where one is dealing with a change in the use of land or buildings, there is no justification for opening such a determination system to verify changes of use made before 21st December, 1963. These changes are immune from enforcement action under the terms of the Bill.
The Amendment asks the wrong question because the thing which it is appropriate to establish is not whether development was involved at some time in the past. The right question is whether whatever development took place and now exists, or what use is current is immune from enforcement action or not. That is the right question, first, because only if existing development is not immune from enforcement action can it be said to require planning permission in any practical sense. Second, it is the question which the planning authority is likely to be competent to answer. The question posed in the Amendment is very sophisticated. It would involve the planning authority in an investigation into the validity of past planning permission such as takes place on an investigation of title.
With the abolition of the four-year rule the process of establishing immunity from enforcement action may turn upon a variety of factors, and all these should be catered for. There are other less fundamental difficulties about the Amendment which I need not elaborate.
I hope that what I have said is sufficient to indicate that we are seized of this problem. Perhaps hon. Members will understand why the draftsman is not yet in a position to let us have an Amendment to consider now.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful for that. Do I understand that it is intended to put this into the Bill later and not merely to deal with it by regulation? Secondly, if it is to be done by means of an application for a certificate to the local authority, if the local authority refuses that certificate, what form of appeal will follow? I assume that there will be some form of appeal and it will not be merely a question of inviting an enforcement notice. Perhaps the Minister has not yet thought out the matter. I would ask that some form of appeal is provided rather than that it should be necessary to go through the enforcement notice procedure.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.45 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 215, in page 86, line 25, after 'and' to insert '(c)'.
I mentioned in Committee that on one occasion in the House I was teased by the Speaker for making a speech about a missing comma. I was gratified that the Government had to bring in an amending Statutory Instrument to insert the comma. But the Government never learn. They have lost a comma again, and to make sure that they would not lose it again I thought it better to divide the paragraph into two, and then it would not need the comma; we could put a letter in instead. The intention behind the Amendment is to put the matter right.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 216, in page 86, line 37, to leave out '(c)' and insert '(d)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can take at the same time Amendment No. 217— page 86, line 39, leave out first 'in' and insert 'for'—and Amendment No. 220 —page 86, line 43, at end insert:
'the local authority and the Minister shall secure, so far as may be practicable, to persons


who were owners or occupiers of property which the authority have acquired as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, an opportunity to obtain their previous respective interests in that property on terms settled with due regard to the price at which such interests were acquired from them'.

Mr. Page: Amendment No. 216 is a paving Amendment. We seek to amend Section 78(7) of the principal Act so as to provide a system of pre-emptions for those who have been deprived of their property for a certain purpose and that purpose is not to be carried out and the acquiring authority intends to dispose of the property. The meat of these Amendments is in Amendment No. 220. The intention is that there should be an obligation to offer back the property to the owners or occupiers from whom it was taken if the opportunity is present and they require the property back and if the terms are right.
I am aware that Section 78(7) of the 1962 Act dealt with a very much narrower situation. I have used that Section in order to propose we introduce into the Bill a matter of relief to owners who have been deprived of their property, who have had it taken from them under compulsory powers for a certain purpose for the benefit of the community, and then it is no longer wanted for that purpose. There should be, recognised not only in circulars from the Ministry, but embodied in the law, an obligation on the part of an acquiring authority to return the property to the owners.
Where property has been taken for a certain purpose for the benefit of the public, the acquiring authority should not seek to make a gain out of inflation during the period for which it has held the property, but should endeavour to restore the property to its owners as if it had not been taken from them. It was taken from them under compulsory powers for the benefit of the community, and, if the community do not want it, it should be restored as if it had never been taken away.

Mr. MacDermot: The essence of this matter is that it is important to recognise the distinction between land which is bought with the object of re-disposal in order to help a redevelopment or other planning purpose, and land which has been compulsorily acquired for a purpose and is then found to be surplus to requirement and re-disposed of.
The first class was covered by the old Section 68(l)(a), and will be covered by Clause 24(l)(a), (b) and (c). There is statutory protection for the person whose land is taken to give him the chance to have a property within the redevelopment area. This protection will remain in the Statute and is written into the Statute. Paragraph (d) does not deal with the redevelopment situation which paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) deal with. Land acquired under paragraph (d) and not afterwards required would be the surplus disposal type of case, and this is covered and protected by the well recognised post Crichel Down procedures. Paragraph (d) replaces the provisions under Section 68(1)(b), and that paragraph did not provide for offering the previous owner a chance to acquire the land, or part of it. We are following the previous pattern, and it is founded on the same principle.

Mr. Allason: The Minister of State tells us that the Government follow the post Crichel Down procedures as if they were entirely satisfactory. He ought to remind the House that the post Crichel Down procedures relate only to agricultural land. Industrial land in my constituency was taken from an owner because it was new town land and thought to be required. It was not required, and the Minister considered the case and refused to offer it back to the owner. I have submitted the case to the Parliamentary Commissioner, who is now considering it. The post-Crichel Down procedure is at the discretion of the Minister. The discretion of the Minister is improperly applied here. The Crichel Down procedure is not a wonderful be-all and end-all and entirely satisfactory. The Minister's discretion is limited to agricultural property, which is to my mind entirely unsatisfactory.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 221, in page 87, leave out lines 4 to 8.
This paragraph seeks to amend the law in this way. As it stands under the 1962 Act, if an outdoor advertiser is told to remove his site and he can show that it was erected and has been standing since a date prior to 2nd May, 1960, he is entitled to compensation. Paragraph 28 seeks to change that date to 1st August, 1948; in other words, he is entitled to


compensation only if he can show that it was standing prior to 1st August, 1948.
I will not go into the details of how those dates are arrived at, and I know that the reason for trying to amend the law in this way is that it is thought not to have been the intention to alter it in 1962. But we are depriving certain owners of outdoor advertising sites of the right to compensation. It is not certain that the intention in 1962 was not to make the date 2nd May, 1960.

Mr. MacDermot: When advertising control was introduced in the 1947 Act, it was provided that, if people were required to remove an advertisement or discontinue the use of a site which was used for the display of advertisements on the date when the regulations came into force, they should be entitled to compensation. That was in accordance with the general pattern and meant that, if people were to be prevented from doing that which they had previously been able to do, they should be entitled to compensation.
It was never intended that, if subsequent and later regulations were made, the qualifying date should be advanced every time. This is the accidental result of the fact that the wording used in the 1947 Act was swept up unamended in the 1962 Act, that being a consolidating Measure.
The effect of the 1962 Act is that, every time regulations are made, the qualifying date is advanced. There is no reason why it should be. Accordingly, the Amendment corrects the position and restores the 1948 date. There is one minor compensating benefit, because it removes the other qualifying date of 7th January, 1947.

Mr. Graham Page: With that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 222, in page 87, line 8 [Schedule 5], at end insert:
29. In section 127 (general provisions as to compensation for depreciation under Part VIII), in subsection (2), after the word ' thereof ' there shall be inserted the words ' or under Part V or section 75 of the Act of 1968'.

No. 224, in line 11 [Schedule 5], after 'V', insert 'or section 75'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 226, in page 87, line 24, at end insert:
31. The following subsection shall be added to section 146 of the principal Act: —
'(3) For the purpose of sections 138 to 152 inclusive of this Act the personal representatives of a deceased person, who had not at the time of his death served a notice under section 139 of this Act and who at the time of his death was entitled to an interest qualifying for protection in accordance with section 138 of this Act, shall be deemed to be that person if a member of the family of the deceased is an owner-occupier of the hereditament in respect of which the deceased had an interest qualifying for protection'.
This new subsection is concerned with planning blight. Under the principal Act, if a person who has served a notice seeking to demand that the local authority acquires his interest because his property has been blighted by planning proposals dies, his personal representatives can step into his shoes and require the authority to carry on with the purchase of the property. There is a small area where a person dies before serving a notice and hardship could be suffered by members of his family.
6.0 a.m.
The matter was discussed in the Standing Committee and I think the Minister raised the objection that if one was to limit the option merely to allowing the personal representatives in every case to serve such a notice, the situation would be too wide and possibly open to abuse.
For that reason we have incorporated an additional qualification that this right can be exercised only by personal representatives where there is a member of the family resident in the family home for at least six months and where he is therefore an owner-occupier under Section 147 of the principal Act. I hope the Minister will now see his way to meet the Amendment.

Mr. MacDennot: I speak with some diffidence on this subject because I know that the hon. Member has a lot more practical knowledge of this problem than I have. But I see he has written into his Amendment the requirement that the member of the family of the deceased


who continues to live in the House is an owner-ocsupier of the hereditament.
Am I right in thinking that that means he is the person who, under the will or intestacy of the deceased, is the person who has become the owner and would be entitled to have the property conveyed to him or her? If this is so, is not the practical answer that by the time in which in the ordinary way that property would vest in that person, and with the vesting operating as I understand it back to the date of the death, the qualifying period of six months would normally be satisfied, or very shortly thereafter be satisfied, and they would be able to exercise the right on their own account?
I hope I have understood the facts correctly, and if I have it would seem that the Amendment is unnecessary. If when the hon. Gentleman has considered the matter further he still feels there is a mischief which has not been dealt with, then perhaps he will write to me and I will look at it further.

Mr. Graham Page: I think there is a difficulty here. The Bill as it stands at present gives personal representatives the right to take over the purchase notice if the deceased has served a notice before his death and has become fully qualified. Then it is all right; the personal representatives take over.
But if he has died before serving the notice, although otherwise qualified, then there are two instances to consider. First, he dies leaving a will and someone is entitled to the property under the will, and the will is eventually proved. Then, as the Minister said, the matter dates back to the date of death. But if he dies intestate there is no continuance of ownership because ownership, until letters of administration are granted, rests with the President of the Probate Division. So I think there is some difficulty on intestacy.
What we want to cover here are members of the family who are living in the house with him—and I think the use of the owner-occupier phrase at the end of the Amendment was in error—and to give them the benefit of his qualifying months of residence in the house, so that they do not lose the advantage which he nearly lost by not serving notice before he died.

Mr. MacDermot: I will look at this further.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 227, in page 87, line 24, at end to insert:
31 To section 149 of the principal Act (Meaning of 'owner-occupier' and 'resident owner-occupier') there shall be added the following subsection: —
'(5) A mortgagee in possession of the interest of an owner-occupier or a resident owner-occupier shall have the same rights under this Part of this Act as his mortgagor would have had had he remained in occupation'.
This Amendment is intended to assist the mortgagee who has had to enter into possession in order to protect his security. We hope to assist him to realise his security when it has become subject to planning blight. Otherwise he may be left with that property on his hands.

Mr. MacDermot: We discussed this matter in Committee and I agreed to try to meet the point. That is a complicated matter for drafting and our Amendment is not yet ready. It is our intention to put down an Amendment in another place.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 228, in page 87, line 33, at end insert:
(a) for subsection (1)(a) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
'(a) a structure plan, a local plan or any alteration, repeal or replacement of any such plan, whether before or after the plan, alteration, repeal or replacement has been approved or adopted, or '.

No. 229, in page 88, line 5, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 230, in line 10, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.

No. 231, in line 39, leave out 'a' and insert ' an enforcement'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 232, in page 89, line 1. to leave out paragraph 34 and to insert:
34. For section 178 (proceedings for questioning validity of development plans and


certain orders) there shall be substituted the following section:—

'178.—(1) If any person aggrieved by a structure plan or local plan or by any alteration, repeal or replacement of any such plan, desires to question the validity of the plan, alteration, repeal or replacement on the ground that it is not within the powers conferred by Part I of the Act of 1968, or that any requirement of the said Part I or of any regulations made thereunder has not been complied with in relation to the approval or adoption of the plan, alteration, repeal or replacement, he may, within six weeks from the date of the publication of the first notice of the approval or adoption of the plan, alteration, repeal or replacement required by regulations under section 11(1) of that Act, make an application to the High Court under this section.

(2) On any application under this section the High Court:—

(a) may by interim order wholly or in part suspend the operation of the plan, alteration, repeal or replacement, either generally or in so far as it affects any property of the applicant, until the final determination of the proceedings;
(b) if satisfied that the plan, alteration, repeal or replacement is wholly or to any extent outside the powers conferred by Part I of the Act of 1968, or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by the failure to comply with any requirement of the said Part I or of any regulations made thereunder, may wholly or in part quash the plan, alteration, repeal or replacement, as the case may be, either generally or in so far as it affects any property of the applicant.

(3) The preceding provisions of this section shall apply to an order under section 153 of this Act or under section 75 of the Act of 1968 as they apply to a structure plan, as if, in subsection (1) of this section, for the reference to the notice therein mentioned, there were substituted a reference to the notice section 154(6) of this Act.

(4) Subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall apply, subject to any necessary modifications, to an order under section 168 of this Act as they apply to a structure plan.'.

This is largely a redrafting Amendment to remove possible ambiguities. I can explain further if the House requires.

Mr. Graham Page: Even at this hour I think this requires a little further explanation. Reference is made to
… the first notice of the approval or adoption of the plan …
I have found no reference elsewhere in the Bill to a first or second or any other numbered notice. The approval, of course, would be the case of the Minister approving a structure plan and adoption

would be the case of the local planning authority adopting a local plan.
As certain very important matters have to be dated from that—the Amendment refers also to a period of six weeks from the date of publication of the first notice —for certain action to be taken, it is important to understand what is meant by
… the date … of the first notice of the approval or adoption of the plan …
It is a little puzzling.

Mr. MacDermot: There is now a power to approve any part of the plan. Consequently, one can get the first notice of approval which would only approve part of the plan and subsequent notices approving subsequent parts. This Amendment makes it clear that the first notice is the operative one.

Mr. Graham Page: This is giving the person aggrieved the right to do something about that feeling. The first notice relating to the structure plan may not relate to his area. If the right of appeal is to be dated from then, he will be in difficulty.

Mr. MacDermot: I will look into that point and see whether any rewording is necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 233, in page 89, line 17, leave out ' a' and insert 'an enforcement'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, Amendment No. 234, in page 90, line 13, leave out paragraph (c).
Paragraph 42(c) substitutes a new subsection in Section 199 of the 1962 Act. It deals with the position of the Crown under the Bill. The Crown is free, as I understand it, from any enforcement notices, although partially subject to planning control. When I speak of the Crown, I am not merely talking about what one might call the "Buckingham Palace Crown". This term covers Crown Estates, and the Commissioners for the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster, but it is also any Government Department or any trustee for a Government Department. I do not think that covers nationalised industries, but the House ought to be told to what extent the Crown becomes subject to this Act, or to what extent the Crown in the form


of Government Departments, will accept the discipline of the Act.
Government Departments are undoubtedly subject to purchase notices if they are the appropriate authority. They are also subject, earlier in the Bill, to planning inquiry commissions. Why should they not also be subject to the ordinary process of enforcement notices? It seems that they should no longer be in this privileged position with regard to town planning.

Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Gentleman will realise that in subsection (3) of Section 199 of the 1962 Act, there are certain provisions which do not bind the Crown in relation to enforcement notices, because the Crown is not normally bound by general planning legislation. In this Bill paragraph 13 of the Schedule has a similar provision. Paragraph 42(c) of the Schedule puts the Crown not in any preferential position, but in the same position as any other developer who has lawfully carried out development. If at the time when the development was carried out, it was developed on Crown lands, then should the land subsequently change hands, which is the point of the provision here, it would be quite wrong to try to use an enforcement notice. It would be quite wrong to treat the Crown worse than any other developer.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 235, in page 90, line 20, after 'No', insert 'enforcement'.

No. 236, in line 4, leave out 'a' and insert' an enforcement'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 237, in page 91, line 20, leave out paragraph (b).
This Amendment deals with paragraph 46(b) and makes some new provisions with regard to rights of entry. Sub-paragraph 1A authorises persons appointed by the Minister to enter any building. This did not exist in the 1962 Act. This is restricted to occasions only connected with a proposal, but I do not know how the person whose property is entered knows that there is a proposal, or what right the person has to enter. The Bill makes no provision for formal proposals. Sub-paragraph 1A is too vague

for testing at any time the validity of the entry.
Sub-paragraph 1B gives a similar power to that existing in the 1962 Act when a building preservation order has been made. I suppose that it is reasonable, now that the building preservation order procedure has been abolished, that it should apply to listed buildings, but I rather doubt whether 1B is necessary. There is undoubtedly an extension of powere here to enter buildings and it is not extended in a definite way, but left rather vague. This is a probing Amendment to get a better explanation from the Minister as to why the provision is necessary.

6.15 a.m.

Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Gentleman's first point is how, normally, a person would know whether there is a question when listing or de-listing might be relevant. In the normal way, letters are sent, or the owner is seen. One relies on the co-operation of the owner when any function is to be carried out on listing or de-listing. Now, the Minister has increased responsibility under the Bill and it will be necessary in rare cases of non-co-operation to have the right of entry on to surrounding ground. This is restricted to the Minister because this is the Minister's function, and not that of the local authority—

Mr. Graham Page: That is dependent on a proposal existing. I was complaining that nowhere in the Act is "proposal" defined. The person entering land might say "The Minister proposed it to me", or "I proposed it to the Minister. I know we have not proposed it to the owner of the land." Surely there will be some definition of "proposal".

Mr. Skeffington: Normally, communication is by writing or interview. Sub-paragraph 1B deals with offences under Part 5 and is more concerned with the planning authority, who decide whether there should be a prosecution for contravention of Clause 33. As the Minister has reserve powers, it is necessary to cover his position and that is what 1B does.

Mr. Page: On that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 238 in page 92, line 29, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, Amendment No. 239, in page 94, leave out lines 20 to 28.
This paragraph deals with the Land Commission and gives it extra power. The Minister started a little debate on the Commission earlier and now he can enlarge on it if he wishes. We had to amend the paragraph in Committee because it made nonsense. We shall have to amend it again because it still makes nonsense. We would have amended it if it had made sense. It is still wrong. There is a reference to Section 5(9) of the Bill, but this is not now in the Bill, so the Clause is still a nonsense. Paragraph 58 of the Schedule is not only objectionable because it is nonsense, but because of its contents. But then everything connected with the Land Commission is nonsense and objectionable, so this is not surprising.
The point is that Section 6(3) of the Land Commission Act, 1967, gave certain conditions precedent for compulsory purchase of land by the Land Commission. Section 6(3)(b) states that
in the current development plan, or in any proposals submitted to the planning Minister by a local planning authority for altering or adding to that plan, the land is defined or otherwise indicated in any such manner, or is allocated for purposes of any such description, as may be prescribed for the purposes of this subsection.
First, the Land Commission makes a compulsory purchase order—this is important when considering the further powers given to it—without approval by the Minister, unless objection is made to it; secondly, it makes a compulsory purchase order, if objection is received, with the approval of the Minister; and, thirdly, it can make a compulsory purchase order under the expediting procedure under Section 8 of the 1967 Act when the owner, to put it vulgarly, has not got a cat in hell's chance of resisting it.
If we alter Section 6(3)(b) of the 1967 Act, as is desired under paragraph 58, we are giving the Land Commission power to exercise compulsory purchase powers on the basis of a draft local

plan which has not received approval or been adopted by the local authority and which is still not a complete plan. We have been denied the right to use that plan for purchase notice purposes, and I see no reason why the Land Commission should be given this privileged position. I hope that paragraph 58 will be removed from the Bill. The Land Commission will have the very extensive powers which it already has without increasing those powers any further.

Mr. MacDermot: I will resist the temptation to widen the scope of the debate. I will answer the point of the Amendment by saying that it is misconceived. It is incorrect to say that this paragraph widens the scope or powers of the Land Commission to acquire land. All that it does is to apply the existing provisions to the new local plan procedure. Under existing provisions the Land Commission has the power to acquire land
in the current development plan, or in any proposals submitted to the planning Minister by a local planning authority for altering or adding to the plan …
It already has the power to acquire at the deposit stage; that is, at the time when the formal proposal is submitted to the Minister and before it has been approved. That is all that we are doing under the local plan procedure.
At present we can get a proposal to amend the plan from the existing development plan. From the time that the proposals are submitted there is power. This is comparable to the stage when the local plan is submitted.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 240, in line 34, after 'is', insert:
'the subject of a building presentation notice as defined by section 41 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 or is'.
Apart from pointing out that the word "presentation" should read "preservation", I can move the Amendment formally.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 241, in page 95, line 4, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 243, in line 21, at end insert:
except paragraph (b) of subsection (4) and so much of subsection (5) as empowers the Minister to grant planning permission, discharge any condition or limitation or determine any purpose for which land may be used'.
The Amendment corrects the Schedule which, as originally presented, applied in Clause 14(2) to (5) the provisions of Section 46(2) to (5) of the 1962 Act, in relation to the enforcement procedures which are necessary in connection with the Civic Amenities Act. This is too wide and the Amendment limits the provision to a certain extent.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 244, in page 98, line 12, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Order for Third Reading read.— [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

6.28 a.m.

Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House: declines to give a Third Reading to a Bill, ostensibly for the introduction of satisfactory reforms in the town and country planning procedures of local councils, which, unrelated to those procedures, gives dictatorial power to a Government department, greater than has ever been given previously, even in times of war, to seize property.
Even at this late hour it is appropriate that I should comment on our proceedings. As I said when we began the Report stage, this is a non-controversial Measure in the party political sense. On the other hand, it is of considerable importance. In a normal Session under a normal Government it would be regarded as perhaps the major Bill to come before Parliament in the Session, for although it is non-controversial in one sense, it affects a large number of people and a great many interests. I regret, therefore, that in its later stages we have had to discuss the Measure in rather less depth than we might have wished.
I must, at the outset, explain one matter lest it be misunderstood why my hon. Friends and I have, in the light of

what I have said, tabled Amendments suggesting either "That the Question be not put forthwith" or:
That this House declines to give a Third Reading to a Bill, ostensibly for the introduction of satisfactory reforms in the town and country planning procedures of local councils, which, unrelated to those procedures, gives dictatorial power to a Government department, greater than has ever been given previously, even in times of war, to seize property.
It is a matter of some regret to us, though we make no complaint of the Chair in this regard—to do so would be improper and unfair—that we did not have an opportunity on Report to comment on the provisions of Clause 25(1). As the Bill now stands, that gives to the Ministry of Public Building and Works a power to
acquire compulsorily any land necessary for the public service.
This is a quite extraordinary provision to include in a Measure of this kind. We would certainly wish that in another place action should be taken to ensure that that power is strictly limited.
I cannot, from my own experience in the Ministry of Public Building and Works, see any reason why that Ministry should be given any power at all in this regard. Certainly it should not be more than the power which any other Government Department already possesses. I can see that there may be cases in which it would be a matter of convenience that the Ministry of Public Building and Works should in effect act as agent of a Government Department which already has compulsory purchase powers.
As Minister myself, I found it of enormous benefit that the Ministry did not have any compulsory purchase powers at all. That Ministry has to deal with a great number of property acquisitions of one kind and another in the course of a year, not only in civil matters, but also because it has a great deal of work to do for the Defence Department. It really does not need any compulsory purchase powers.
One of the reasons why it has done so well is that the public can regard it as the one Government Department which does not wield the big stick; it is looked upon as the one Department of the Government which can deal across the table in a free market. Therefore, there is in negotiations none of the feeling that there is a threat of compulsory


purchase behind the activities of that Ministry. So people deal freely with it, and the great strength of the Ministry at the moment in the market is that it has the advantage which comes from being someone who is good for the money—that is, of course, as long as our money remains good for anything. However, as things stand, people know that when they deal with the Ministry of Public Building and Works they deal in a free market, without the threat of compulsory acquisition, and that they will get a fair deal and will get a fair price in the ordinary course of negotiations.
In my view, it would be far better to leave it like that, but certainly it cannot be right to give any Government Department the power which is given by Clause 25(1)—power to
acquire compulsorily any land necessary for the public service.
There may be questions, in practice, how far that will be interpreted, but as the words stand they are far too wide, and I hope we shall have an assurance from the Minister of State that this will be dealt with in another place.
We have had to move our Amendment in order to raise this issue. We of course do not wish to give the impression that we are totally opposed to this Bill. As I said on Second Reading, and as I said at the beginning of the Report proceedings, we think there is much that is good in the Bill, and from its general principles we do not dissent. We all know there has to be some amendment of the law of town and country planning to improve our development plan procedures and to provide rights to the public to express their views on these matters. With all that we are in agreement.
What worries us is that a major Bill of this kind has had to be so squeezed into the Government's already overcrowded legislative programme. I think everyone who has attended the debates which we have had on Report will agree that although we are still sitting at a fairly late hour—or fairly early hour, whichever way one likes to look at it— not a moment has been wasted. My hon. Friends, as expeditiously as they could, have moved a large number of Amendments, and have also discussed, as expeditiously as humanly possible, the very

large number of Government Amendments. We found ourselves faced with 62 pages of new Clauses and Amendments, and we were asked to deal with them in one day and a little period of time after 10 o'clock at night. It is not sufficient but we have done our best.
The Government have introduced a great number of Amendments, many of which we have accepted, and we have introduced a great number, many of which they have accepted, and we have improved the Bill, but there remains a real danger that we have not examined it with all the necessary care. We must accept that we send it to another place with a great deal to be done by a number of legislators, who, judging from Press reports of their proceedings, feel somewhat resentful about the enormous burden now being cast upon them to tidy up legislation.
However, I congratulate the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which they have conducted our proceedings. We have nothing but praise for the way in which they have carried the heavy burden which falls upon Ministers who have to deal with all the details of a major Bill of this kind, which is not only important to the subject but raises immense and complicated legal, administrative and other difficulties.

6.37 a.m.

Mr. Lubbock: May I congratulate hon. Members opposite on their tour de force in replying so capably to the Amendments moved during the night? I too do not consider it satisfactory to have dealt with these Amendments during the night. I think the extra time on Report would have been better. But that is all past now and I wish the Bill every success.

6.38 a.m.

Mr. MacDermot: I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for their kind remarks about me and the Parliamentary Secretary, and I add my own thanks for the great assistance which I have had from the Parliamentary Secretary. We have had some very interesting debates, and I thank hon. Members opposite for their serious and helpful contributions. I have no doubt that they have greatly


improved the Bill. I must mention in particular the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who has an unparalleled knowledge of the details of this law. He has gone through the Bill with the greatest care and has never wasted time but has always had something valuable to say. I am certain that he has helped considerably to improve the Bill.
I hope that we can end on a friendly note and that hon. Members will not pursue their somewhat violently worded Amendment. I would have been glad to discuss the Amendment by which they proposed to deal with what they thought were the excessive powers of compulsory purchase to be given to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's former Ministry, the Ministry of Public Building and Works. If we had accepted it, as, in a Machiavellian spirit, we might have done, we should have enlarged the powers beyond those already in the Bill, and would, among other things, have given the Ministry the power to acquire land for motorways—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss Amendments now.

Mr. MacDennot: That is a further reason why I cannot go into these matters, but we can discuss what is in the Bill. I reject the allegation that this gives dictatorial powers to a Government Department. I know what has given rise to this. First, I suppose it is a wish in what has been such a friendly and non-controversial debate to try to extract some party political point to make at the end of the day. Secondly, there is the fact that the wording that has been used and is in the Bill, is taken from an ancient Statute, Section 2 of the Commissioners of Works Act, 1852. This is the phrase which defines the existing power of that Minister to acquire land by agreement. He may acquire land necessary for the public service.
All that is being done is to equate his powers of compulsory purchase with his powers of agreement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] Hon. Members ooh and ah, but they know that if they followed what was said in Committee these words, which to us may sound surprisingly wide, are not the kind of words a modern draftsman would use in a modern

Statute. They have in fact been construed extremely narrowly and on a number of occasions, as no doubt the right hon. and learned Member knows from experience in the Department, advice has been taken, including the advice of the Law Officers, on the construction of these words. As a result, construction and practice in relation to them has been built up which is far narrower than the words would imply, and I think far narrower than any other general wording which would be likely to be devised and used today.
If we are to reject this wording as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, I fear that what would be needed would be an extremely lengthy definition of the different purposes and different bodies for which the Ministry of Public Building and Works acquires land. It would also be a provision which would constantly need to be amended as new organisations come into existence and existing ones are renamed. Simply because of the sheer complication of trying to draft a substituted provision we have followed the existing wording of the 1852 Act. It is a wording which is narrowly confined to the purposes for which the Ministry of Public Building and Works acquires land for other bodies.

Mr. Rippon: I would not want the hon. and learned Gentleman to be under any misunderstanding. This is not an attempt at the last minute to inject a party political point. We are very much concerned that powers to acquire land compulsorily should be given to a Government Department which has managed powers to acquire by agreement for over a century. If what the Minister of State says is true, and I do not dissent from it—that it will require a lengthy Clause to define precisely what this Ministry is to be given—I hope that in another place either that will be insisted upon or this Clause will be rejected. Unless the Minister of State can give a more definite assurance than he seems able to give at the moment that the Government will spell out very strictly the reasons why the Ministry of Public Building and Works needs compulsory powers, we shall certainly divide on this issue.

Mr. MacDermot: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is, of course, entitled to his view. He thinks the Ministry


of Public Building and Works would be better off without powers of compulsory purchase. Why confine that to the Ministry of Public Building and Works? Perhaps he would like all public authorities to have to acquire by agreement, in which case they would require a bottomless purse, which I have no doubt he might think cynically that they have because they have the taxpayers behind them. Precisely because of this it is found necessary and right that public bodies and departments should have powers of compulsory purchase so that they cannot be held to ransom in the way that can happen where someone knows something is required for a Ministry or a public body and the owner of the land can hold out for an extortionate price.
The right hon. Gentleman must know from his own experience that in recent years the Ministry of Public Building and Works has been acquiring large office buildings in the centre of London. They had remained empty for a long time and the negotiations, for the Ministry to acquire them, were long when it did not have powers of compulsory purchase and was acquiring by agreement. From that, it is an obvious inference that it was necessary to hold out for a very long time so that a reasonable agreement could be reached on price.
The right hon. Gentleman will also know that, when an acquiring authority has powers of compulsory purchase, it is possible to bring the property owner to the point where he is prepared to sell at the true market price at a much earlier

stage. These powers need to be used seldom, but they bring a much healthier atmosphere to the negotiations.

The right hon. Gentleman says that people welcome the absence of compulsory powers when they are dealing with that Ministry because they have a completely free market. In his sense of the completely free market, I agree that they have it; and I can well understand that they welcome it. However, I cannot agree that it is a situation which should be perpetuated or continued. We take the view that clearly that Ministry should have powers of compulsory purchase.

What is important is that we do not, in giving the powers of compulsory purchase, extend its powers of acquisition beyond the sphere in which at the moment it can acquire by agreement. It is thought that any attempt to redraft these powers with some other formula would be found in practice to lead to that extension, and this is confirmed by the Amendment tabled by right hon. and hon. Members opposite.

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to look, to examine, and to see whether it is possible to find any other form of words which would not give rise to such powers. I do not give any undertaking that we will table an Amendment, because we must see whether it is possible to find a suitable formula.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 28, Noes 115.

Division No. 163.]
AYES
[6.48 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grant, Anthony
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Allason, James (Hemel Hempttead)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Higgine, Terence L.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hordem, Peter
Silvester, Frederick


Clegg, Walter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Cooke, Robert
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Temple, John M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Murton, Oscar



du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Eden, Sir John
Peyton, John
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Goodhew, Victor
Quennell, Miss J. M.





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Archer, Peter
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Blackburn, F.
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Buchan, Norman


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Booth, Albert
Chapman, Donald


Beaney, Alan
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Coe, Denis


Bence, Cyril
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Coleman, Donald




Concannon, J. D.
Hoy, James
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Davidson, Arthur (Accrlngton)
Hunter, Adam
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dempcey, James
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pavitt, Laurence


Dewar, Donald
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-HuH, W.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lee, John (Reading)
pentland, Norman


Dickens, James
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dolg, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dunnett, Jack
Lubbock, Eric
Reynolds, G. W.


Dun woody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McBride, Neil
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow.E.)


Dun woody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
MacColl, James
Rose, Paul


Eadie, Alex
MacDermot, Niall
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Macdonald, A. H.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ellis, John
McGuire, Michael
Skefflngton, Arthur


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor (RuthergMn)
Slater, Joseph


Enttals, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Small, William


Evans, loan L. (Birmrh'm, Yardley)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taverne, Dick


Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marquand, David
Urwin, T. W.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mendetson, J. J.
Vartey, Eric G.


Forrester, John
Miltan, Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Freeson, Reginald
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Garrett, W. E.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Moyle, Roland
Wallace, George


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Murray, Albert
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Newens, Stan
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hamling, William
Ogden, Eric
Woof, Robert


Hannan, William
O'Malley, Brian




Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orbach, Maurice
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Haseldine, Norman
Orme, Stanley



Helter, Eric S.
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Harry Gourlay and Mr. Joseph Harper.


Homer, John
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 39 (Amendment on second or third reading) and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — SUB-POST OFFICES (ANTI-BANDIT SCREENS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]

6.56 a.m.

Mr. Bernard Weatherill: After such a long night, I am pleased to have this opportunity of raising the question of protection of sub-postmasters. In view of the lateness of the hour, I shall do my best not to keep the House and you, Mr. Speaker, too long.
The purpose of the debate is to ask whether the Postmaster-General will move rather further than he has in helping to protect sub-postmasters in crime-prone areas from the hazards which they face by providing, free of charge, anti-bandit screens. I am well aware that sub-postmasters are employed on an agency basis and that one of the conditions of their employment is that they
must provide, at their own expense, such reasonable office accommodation and fittings

as the Department may require for carrying out the work of their office.
But these regulations, I understand, were laid down many years ago at a time when sub-postmasters were required to carry very much less, and much less valuable, stock than they do today.
Today, a typical sub-post office has in terms of turnover of post office and Government business anything up to £500,000 a year. I have checked the stock of one of the post offices in my constituency, and I have a list of a number of sub-post offices in the Greater London Area. It would perhaps be worth drawing attention to the amount of stock these post offices have to carry these days. They vary in terms of postal orders from about £500 in Romford to over £4,000 in Southall, and in terms of National Insurance stamps, from £530 in Harrow to £18,000 in Greenford. In terms of cash in order to pay National Insurance benefits, anything up to £1,500 would be the average amount they would be required to carry.
These records show that the average urban post office carries anything up to 30 different categories of insurance stamps. When one realises that a single National Insurance stamp for a Class I contributor is worth 58s. 2d., it is not difficult to imagine the value of the stock in an average sub-post office. I quote


these details simply to show how radically the situation has changed in recent years, and the amount of valuable and disposable stock which is at risk in the average sub-post office.
The number and frequency of attacks in recent years have been quite frightening. In 1966 a counter clerk in Leeds was murdered, and since that time there have been on average two attacks every week on sub-post office personnel. A constituent of mine, Mr. Ratcliffe, came to see me recently and left with me a Post Office circular of 3rd April. On the front page are listed the number and the amounts of awards for bravery which have been awarded to the staff. I quote very briefly from it. A sub-postmistress, £50; another sub-postmistress £30; for resourceful conduct on the occasion of a robbery, £10, and so on. The figures speak for themselves.
There is hardly an hon. Member of this House who has not had at least one incident in his constituency, and in the London area many of us have had several. In the London postal area alone in the last year there have been 37 robberies.
On 25th April a number of Questions were put down for the Postmaster-General, including one from me, in which I asked:
if in view of the increasing number of attacks on sub-post offices, he will ensure that protective screens are made available free of charge to sub-postmasters with offices in officially designated crime prone areas?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1968; Vol. 763, c. 456.]
Subsequently a Motion was put on the Order Paper which was based on this Question and which in the interests of brevity I will not quote, but it attracted no fewer than 40 signatures.
I fully appreciate that the Postmaster-General has offered a grant of £50 towards the cost of anti-bandit screens for sub-postmasters in "crime prone areas," and he has said that he will give them, in addition, an interest-free loan over a five-year period to cover the balance of the cost. I am also aware that he maintains that the National Federation of Sub-postmasters has accepted this offer. But, with respect, I understand that this is not exactly so. I have no wish to go into details of the dispute which the

Federation has with the Postmaster-General about this statement, but at the conference in Jersey last week the deputy secretary of the Federation gave his version of the negotiations, and I am sure that the Postmaster-General will be aware of what he said.
I understand that standard kits cost in the region of £100 each, possibly less if a bulk order is placed. The Postmaster-General has already promised a £50 grant. Assuming 10,000 kits for sub-post offices in crime-prone areas, the total extra cost to the Postmaster-General's Department would be about half a million pounds—perhaps less than that if one takes into account the interest-free loan which has also been promised.
I well understand and appreciate the absolute need for a cut in Government expenditure, but I suggest that this is one area in which there is an overwhelming case for spending a little more. After all, a little earlier last night the House approved an increase in expenditure by the Gas Board of £1,200 million, and against that the half a million pounds I am asking for is almost a petty cash figure. What is more, I believe that this amount would be quickly recouped.
We all know, and it is an unhappy fact, that crime is on the increase, and so are the attacks on sub-post offices. These offices are a vital part of the service to the public. I appreciate that they are in a unique position in that they are a half private enterprise operation and half Government service, but they are responsible for 55 per cent. of all Post Office over-the-counter sales and are a most important and vital as well as cheap part of the Post Office service.
Theirs is a very reasonable request. It is that the Postmaster-General provides protection not only for them but for his own stock. They are not asking for a contribution towards the installation of anti-bandit screens but merely for the provision of the screens themselves free of charge.
Another constituent of mine, a Mr. Lipman, had this to say in a recent letter:
This newly designed anti-bandit screen has now been offered to us provided we pay some of the purchase price and all of the installation costs. This is like asking a soldier to provide his own anti-tank devices or a policeman to provide his own truncheon. The


Postmaster-General has denied that he has any moral responsibility to provide further protection for those people conducting his business.
I believe that the last sentence is not wholly true.
In reply to a Written Question on Tuesday, the Postmaster-General said that he was reviewing the Post Office's policy on this matter. That is very encouraging news, and I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will be able to say a little more this morning. I am sure that it is his wish not only to protect the Government's money and his Department's property, but also the lives and limbs of sub-postmasters and their staffs, who do such a splendid and important job not only for his Department, but for the public.

7.8 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill). Only yesterday, I received letters from two sub-postmistresses who are grateful for the proffered assistance from the Post Office, but who both say that considerable structural alterations are necessary to their post office counters before the new screens can be fitted. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General has listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said and that he will do everything that he can to help these gallant people.

7.9 a.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): The matter we are debating this morning is one of grave public interest. I share the concern expressed by both hon. Members opposite. In recent years, the country as a whole has seen a regrettable increase of violent crime in our cities and towns.
As hon. Members know, every post office, however small, must have a certain amount of cash on hand to carry out its job, and this is, of course, the reason why we have come to share a heavy part of the burden caused by this national increase in violent crime. To help combat this, we have recently appointed a senior police officer to re-examine all our precautions over the full range of our activities.
I should now like to give the House a break-down of the present situation and

of the steps being taken to meet it. We are this morning dealing with those of our post offices which are classed as scale payment sub-offices. These are the offices where the postmaster is not a civil servant, but is employed on an agency basis. We do not pay him a fixed salary or wage. Instead, he is rewarded on a scale based largely on the amount of business which his office transacts. In return, he is responsible for providing suitable premises, for engaging and paying any extra staff that are required, for providing a counter and other equipment necessary to run the office, and for giving protection to Post Office cash and stock. The money he is paid—on a scale negotiated with the Federation of Sub-Postmasters—specifically takes account of these responsibilities.
I stress this fact particularly as I believe it has not always been clear to hon. Members during the lobbying to which they have been subjected recently by enthusiastic local branches of the Federation. The Post Office has given sub-postmasters considerable extra help in the past in meeting their responsibilities. But responsibility for counter equipment and for security remains a part of their conditions of service—which they accept on appointment and in relation to which they are rewarded.
By far the largest number of our post offices come in this scale payment category.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: While listing these responsibilities, would the hon. Gentleman say whether, supposing there was a theft of £1,000 from a sub-office, the Post Office would suffer the cost of that loss or the sub-postmaster? If the Post Office suffers the loss, would it not be cheaper for the Post Office to provide the anti-bandit screens?

Mr. Slater: That is a form of interjection which does not match the position which I am trying to explain to the House. I am explaining what the terms of their appointment are. They are responsible for the money, the safes, and everything else in their possession.
I was saying that by far the largest number of our post offices come into the scale payment category, 23,127 out of


24,906 to be precise. And altogether they carry out some 50 per cent. of our counter transactions. The hon. Member put it at 55 per cent., but we put it at 50 per cent. The remaining offices are the bigger offices staffed by civil servants.
If I may give some statistics, there were 106 bandit attacks on scale payment offices in the past financial year as compared with 87 in the year before that. Fortunately in only 10 attacks was there any serious injury. I must also stress that a large proportion of the attacks were not successful or else resulted in very small loss, due either to the intelligence and bravery of sub-postmasters and their staff or else to the effectiveness of the security devices provided.
Nevertheless I must stress to the House the seriousness of what we confront. Sub-postmasters have to face ruthless criminals, who are apparently quite prepared to use firearms, ammonia and physical violence to overcome sub-postmasters and their staffs. Hon. Members ask— and they are right to ask—what the Post Office is doing to help sub-postmasters who are placed in this predicament.
The Post Office has in fact already spent £500,000 on various security devices in sub-post offices. The House will I feel sure not wish me to describe those of them whose effectiveness depends on concealment, but I would like to mention alarm bells. As I have said, we have over 23,000 sub-post offices altogether, and about 10,000 of these in the most crime-prone areas have been provided with these special bandit alarms.
It is interesting to note that 85 per cent. of the 106 attacks last year occurred at offices provided with bandit alarms and that in only four instances was the attack pressed home after the bandit alarm had been operated. This is not the whole story of course; sometimes the attack was so sudden that there was no time to sound the alarm at all, or it was sounded too late to be fully effective. Nevertheless, this alarm has played a major part in protecting our staff against injury.
In a rather different field of security, safes have been anchored to prevent removal by burglars and many of them have been girdled with special alarm devices.
To enhance co-operation between the Post Office and sub-postmasters in meeting these security problems, we have a joint committee comprising representatives from our Security Section and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. This committee meets regularly to exchange freely their views on sub-post office security in the light of changing crime trends.
It was at one of these meetings that the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters asked the Post Office to look into the possibility of developing an anti-bandit screen for sub-post office counters, made from force-resisting materials which could be mass produced to keep the usual high costs of such sophisticated barriers as low as possible. Therefore the Post Office took action.
Post Office engineers, with the advice of crime prevention experts, set out to design such a screen. Having designed and tested this effective protection for sub-postmasters and their assistants, we then had to decide how to make the screens available to any sub-postmaster who wished to have one and, at the same time, provide particular assistance to sub-postmasters in the crime-prone areas. These are mainly the urban areas, where the great majority of bandit attacks have occurred and where there are about 10,000 sub-offices. Provision of screens in these areas will provide protection where it is needed most.
The scheme upon which we decided, after lengthy discussions with the Federation of Sub-Postmasters, was that of inviting all sub-postmasters to give us a provisional order for a screen, based upon our estimates of the likely cost, and, as an encouragement to sub-postmasters in the crime-prone areas, to offer them a contribution of £50 towards that cost.
Additionally, we offered all sub-postmasters an interest-free loan—to be repaid within five years—to cover the costs falling on them. To most sub-postmasters, the cost would under these proposals amount to no more than a few shillings a week. In the light of the number of individual orders received, the Post Office intended to place bulk orders for the parts and make arrangements for them to be delivered to meet the requirements of each sub-postmaster.
The sub-postmaster's task will be to erect the screen himself or get a shop-fitter to do it for him. The cost of the scheme to the Post Office—over and above development and administration costs—will depend on the number of sub-postmasters in the crime-prone areas who accept the offer. If all 10,000 in the crime-prone areas do so, and we hope they will, the cost to us under this scheme will be £500,000.
Newly appointed sub-postmasters in the crime-prone areas will need to start off with good counter protection and we shall insist they do so at the outset. Where a new sub-postmaster is taking over an office which has already received a £50 grant a further grant will not be made; he would probably buy the screen from the outgoing tenant. Where the office had not received a grant the incoming sub-postmaster would be entitled to it. This arrangement would benefit existing sub-postmasters by keeping up second-hand prices.
The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters accepted the scheme subject to further negotiation on the financial aspect and has since been pressing us to bear the whole cost. Because of this, sub-postmasters in some areas have apparently been persuaded not to complete the provisional order, despite the assurance we gave that no one who buys the screen at the outset of the scheme will be at a financial disadvantage if, say, within the next five years the basis of the scheme should be changed.
For our part, we have pressed ahead with the job of getting tenders for the bulk supply of the necessary components and we hope that we may get the first supplies shortly.
In devising this scheme we had on the one hand to take account of sub-postmasters, conditions of service which I described earlier in my speech. I repeat the salient points. Sub-postmasters are agents; they are not direct employees of the Post Office. Their terms of appointment make them specifically responsible for providing adequate safeguards for Post Office cash and stock. Their emoluments take these facts into account.
To put it another way, sub-postmasters own their businesses and improvements made to the premises accrue to them. When one of the screens we have designed has been installed, it will be the

property of the sub-postmaster, and any second-hand price will go to him if he sells his business.
On the other hand, the Post Office is very deeply concerned in this situation, both as regards helping to protect its own cash and stock and as regards the welfare and protection of sub-postmasters and their staff. The earlier assistance which I have described stems from this. This too is the reason why we have designed the screen now under discussion; why we are looking after its manufacture and distribution, and why we have made the offer of financial assistance whose principal features is the outright offer of £50 covering the 10,000 sub-postmasters in crime-prone areas, supplemented by interest-free loans for costs other than this.
These terms are to my mind fair and reasonable, having regard to sub-postmasters' responsibilities and conditions of appointment. £50 may not sound a great deal, but it adds up to a lot when multiplied by 10,000, and any improvement in what we are proposing to pay would be expensive in proportion. Our scheme is of course a compromise. It recognises that both the individual sub-postmaster and the Department have responsibilities in combating crime against the scale payment office.
As with any financial compromise there is bound to be debate as to whether the sum selected is correct. My right hon. Friend is certainly not heedless of the strong representations he has received from Members on both sides of the House. He is interested in this debate, and the observations made by the hon. Gentleman. In the interests of the sub-postmasters in his constituency and all others, he is reviewing this matter. Meanwhile, I hope I have been able to show tonight that the course we have pursued has at least been logical, and not unworthy.
Ever since I went to the Department we have been introducing methods of crime prevention, attempting to abate this trend. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that my right hon. Friend will give every consideration to what he has said.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Seven o'clock a.m.